RSA NO. 370 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.370 of 2008 Decided on : 24-03-2009 Amrit Lal ....Appellant VERSUS Labh Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant. MAHESH GROVER, J The plaintiff-appellant has filed the present regular second appeal assailing the findings of the learned Trial Court dated 13.1.2005 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 31.1.2007. A sale deed was purportedly executed by respondent no.4 namely Jagdish in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 3 namely Labh Singh, Gurmit Singh and Gurdass. It is the case of the appellant that he is the adopted son of the vendor Jagdish-respondent no.4 and therefore, his interest has been adversely affected because of the sale deed in favour of the aforesaid persons. He pleaded that the sale in their favour is a result of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence and the same was without consideration. It was further the pleaded case of the appellant that the property in question had been obtained by respondent no.4 Jagdish in a scheme of rehabilitation of Harijan community subject to the condition that he will not alienate the same but despite that the same has been done. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 in whose favour the sale deed had RSA NO. 370 of 2008 2 been executed contested the suit and denied the averments of the appellant. It is pleaded that he has no connection with the suit property. Similarly, respondent no.4 pleaded that the appellant has no connection with the suit property and that he had never adopted him as a son. He further pleaded that the property had been alienated because he needed the money for the treatment of his wife who was admitted to a hospital. Parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed 3.11.1992 made by the defendant no.4 in favour of the defendants no. 1 to 3 is based on fraud and obtained by undue influence? OPP. 2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as it is based on false and frivolous act?OPD. 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has no locus standi to the present suit?OPD. 4) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD. 5) Relief. Both the Courts concluded that adoption as claimed by the appellant was not proved and thereafter the Courts concluded that the appellant has no concern with the suit property and Jagdish being the sole owner of the property was very well within his rights to alienate it and the suit was dismissed. In present Regular Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant more or less reiterated the arguments on the lines of the pleadings that have been raised by him to contend that he is the adopted son of Jagdish RSA NO. 370 of 2008 3 and since the sale was without any consideration and as a result of fraud and mis-representation, the same ought to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant had pleaded that he was adopted son of Jagdish- respondent no.4 which was denied by Jagdish himself. No evidence worth the name was produced to prove that he was the adopted son of Jagdish- respondent no.4. In this view of the matter, it is clear that he had no concern with the suit property of Jagdish-respondent no.4 who himself being the sole owner of the property was competent to alienate it in the manner as he chose to. In this view of the matter, when consistent and concurrent findings are recorded by both the Courts below, the same cannot be termed to be perverse as there is no evidence to substantiate the plea of the appellant. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 24 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge