R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2011 Bimla and another ......Appellants Versus Mewa and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that after the death of Suresh on 25.7.1998, plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 had inherited his property in equal shares. Deceased Suresh was the son of the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 were threatening to sell the entire share of deceased Suresh, which had been wrongly mutated in their favour. Defendant No.1, in her written statement, averred that the R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 2 land in dispute was owned and possessed by her husband. After the death of her husband, the land in dispute had been inherited by defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. The property left by Suresh, his father, had been inherited by him and his mother- defendant No.1 in equal shares. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5, in their written statement, averred that defendant No.3 was a bona fide purchaser. The plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share being owner of the suit land in the suit property as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on dated 10.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 and subsequent mutation sanctioned on their basis are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff are liable to be set aside? OPD 3. Whether the defendants have committed contempt of Court, if so its effect ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 3 present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2009 and held that the plaintiff was owner of 1/3rd share out of the suit property. The sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 dated 10.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 and mutation sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds were held to be illegal, null and void and it was further held that the same were not binding in the rights of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2011, the Additional District Judge partly modified the decree passed by the trial Court and held that the sale deed dated 10.3.2006 Ex.P-8 was legal and valid. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiff had got share out of the property of her husband Om parkash on partition. Thereafter, the plaintiff could not get any share out of the property of her son Suresh. The subsequent purchasers were bonafide purchasers for consideration. Compromise effected between the parties had not been considered by the first Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff is, admittedly, the mother of deceased R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Suresh, who was husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. After his death, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff being mother of deceased Suresh was entitled to inherit his property to the extent of 1/3rd share. The appellants have placed reliance on Will dated 15.6.2007. However, the appellants failed to produce on record the Will in original. The said un- registered Will was sought to be set up by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of additional evidence before the first Appellate Court. The said application was rightly dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court as the un-registered Will, sought to be led in evidence by way of additional evidence by defendants No.1 and 2, had not been pleaded by them in their written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a compromise had been effected between the parties and the same had not been taken in consideration by the learned first Appellate Court. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. The certified copy of the compromise deed dated 25.2.2010 has been placed on record. The said compromise was executed between Mewa and defendant No.3. As per the said compromise, the plaintiff had no objection if the sale deed dated 10.3.2006, executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3, was declared valid. The learned first Appellate Court, while relying upon the said compromise, has declared the said deed dated 10.3.2006 Ex.P-8 as valid. No compromise had been effected between the parties qua the sale deed Ex.P-9, executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5. The sale deed Ex.P-9 was executed during the pendency of the suit on R.S.A.No. 2102 of 2011 (O&M) 5 4.4.2006. Hence, defendants No.4 and 5 could not be declared as a bona fide purchasers. The plaintiff, thus, could not be held bound by the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 by defendants No.1 and 2 qua her share. Moreover, this is not an appeal filed by vendees. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2011 anita