RSA No.3448 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3448 of 2008 Date of Decision:03.11.2008 Kartar Nath ....appellant Versus Pawan Kumar & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. As per the averments made in the suit, it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that suit land was owned by Lal Chand. It was sold to Baij Nath and Kartar Nath. They had purchased this property jointly with the help of joint funds. Baij Nath was addicted to drinking etc. Baij Nath without any legal necessity sold the property to defendants. This sale was challenged by the minors and their mother Smt.Darshana Devi w/o Baij Nath. However, this suit was withdrawn under the pressure of villagers without any certificate to the effect that the compromise was in the benefit of the minors. Thus, the said withdrawal has no effect over the rights of the plaintiffs. Moreover, Kartar Nath is in possession of the land as tenant and partition proceedings have no value. So, possession cannot be taken away from him on the basis of the said partition. When defendants tried to take possession from him forcibly, Kartar Nath brought a suit for permanent injunction. In that case, the defendants had undertaken not to RSA No.3448 of 2008 2 take possession illegally. Now, the defendants are declaring that they will take the forcible possession. Hence the present suit has been filed with the prayer that the sale deeds in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 17 marlas and 5 kanals 12 marlas and sale in favour of Ram Pal and Ram Bir by Baij Nath be declared illegal, null and void and plaintiff Kartar Nath be declared owner of land measuring 42 kanals in possession 5 kanals 8 marlas as tenant and defendants be restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit property. Defendants objected the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that it is not maintainable in the present form and it is vague as no description of the land or numbers of the sale deed have been given. So, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit was also denied. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct. Previously, Civil Suit No.1584 dated 12.11.1991 filed by them through their mother was dismissed as withdrawn as a compromise had taken place on 17.02.1997. In view of these facts, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In so far as partition proceedings are concerned, Baij Nath and Kartar Nath were parties to the proceedings, which were finalized by a competent Court of jurisdiction. Kartar Nath had filed a Civil Suit No.213 for permanent injunction which was decided on 21.07.2000. In that case, Ram Pal had agreed to take possession of the suit land only in due course of law. So,possession was taken in accordance with the partition order passed by the competent Court. It was prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs is false and the same be dismissed. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. It was held that Baij Nath was the owner of the property in dispute. RSA No.3448 of 2008 3 However, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the property was ancestral in nature and therefore the sale deeds were legal and valid. It was further held that the suit was not properly framed because there was no description of the sale deeds or the sale of the lands in the dispute and that the suit was not maintainable. It was also held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff No.6 Kartar Nath has filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Ambala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.09.2008. Still not satisfied, Kartar Nath plaintiff No.6 has filed this appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. I find no merit in this appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is totally frivolous and he has miserably failed to even make out the case much less proved the same. It is well settled that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and has to prove his own case. There is no evidence of any kind on record to show that the property in dispute was ancestral. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that Baij Nath was owner of land situated in village Ajnali or that he had inherited it from his father. Further the impugned sale deeds were earlier also challenged by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 through their mother Darshana Devi. The said suit was withdrawn. There is not even an iota of evidence to prove that the suit had been withdrawn as a result of fraud etc. Even the details of the sale deeds have also not been given in the present suit. Thus, the suit is not maintainable at all in the present form. Even the appellant was unable to show his locus standi RSA No.3448 of 2008 4 to file this appeal on behalf of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5, who have now become major. Counsel for the appellant was also unable to raise any grievance against the impugned judgment and decree in any manner on behalf of plaintiff No.6. Thus, I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 03.11.2008 neenu