iN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3882 OF 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 Jaspal Singh and anr. ..Appellants. Versus Gurdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs-Jaspal Singh and Ninder Kaur filed the suit for declaration which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.) Balachaur (Nawanshahar) vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 4 of its judgment, reads as under: “The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint for declaring the same as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and further prayed that the revenue entries showing defendants as absolute owner are wrong, illegal RSA No.3882 OF 2009(O&M) ..2.. and liable to be corrected. It was further prayed that the sale deeds dated 25.09.95, 26.6.95 and 17.3.2006 of the suit property executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 are illegal and without consideration. The plaintiff also sought decree for joint possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying the suit property as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and also from alienating the suit land. It was stated in the plaint that the property in dispute is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family consisting of plaintiffs, defendants no.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 is merely Karta of the ancestral property and the parties to the suit are Hindus. It was further stated that the defendant No.1 has started selling away Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property which is for meeting his own just for bad vices and there was no legal necessity for making the sale. It was further stated that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have started claiming the sale of some part of the suit property from defendant No.1. Although, no such sale is admitted but in case it is proved that land has been sold then sale deed is bogus transaction. 3. Notice of the suit was issued and suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 3 whereas defendant No.2 did not appear. Apart from taking preliminary objections, it was stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and it was claimed by defendant No.3 that he is bonafide purchaser with defendant No.2l. The pedigree table given by the plaintiff in the plaintiff was disputed RSA No.3882 OF 2009(O&M) ..3.. and correct pedigree table was reproduced, which was as follows: Daula | | ___________________________________________________ | | ATTU Ganga Singh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | KARMI ISHRY (wife of Ganga Singh) (wife of Ganga Singh) | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | Avtar Singh Gurdev Singh Bachni Kartari | -------------------------------------------------- | | | Jaspal Singh Ninder Kaur Chuhar Singh It was then pleaded that the property is not Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary and defendant No.1 is not Karta of the alleged Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary. It was then stated that Ganga Singh father of defendant no.1 died testate leaving behind defendant No.1 to be his sole legal heir and mutation No.1912 of inheritance of Ganga Singh was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 on 16.4.1969. It was further stated that the plaintiff No.1 separate in mess and residence for the last 18/19 years and they are not even on speaking terms. It was also stated that the plaintiff No.2 is married for the last 29/30 years and is residing in her law's house since then. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether property in dispute is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property? OPP. RSA No.3882 OF 2009(O&M) ..4.. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether sale deeds dated 25.09.1995 and 26.06.1995 are for legal necessity? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands?OPD. 7. Whether suit is not properly valued?OPD. 8. Whether the suit is hit by principles of resjudicata?OPD 9. Whether suit is within time?OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 11. Relief. Following additional issues were framed on 11.06.2009:- 10(a) Whether sale deeds dated 25.09.1995, 26.09.1995 and 17.03.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 are illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 10(b) Whether sale deeds dated 25.09.1995, 26.09.1995 and 17.03.2006 are for legal necessary? OPD” After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration challenging the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property in the hands of Gurdev Singh was ancestral in nature and hence, he could not alienate the same without any legal necessity. However, the plaintiffs had failed to prove on record RSA No.3882 OF 2009(O&M) ..5.. any evidence to the effect that the suit property was coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1. Rather as per mutation no.1912, defendant no.1 Gurdev Singh had inherited the property of his father by virtue of Will dated 20.5.2006. It has been observed by the learned Additional District Judge in the judgment that plaintiff had admitted that he was residing separately from his father for the last 12-13 years and he had been disinherited by his father. PW-2 Jaswinder Singh in his cross-examination deposed that the defendant No.1 was exclusive owner of the suit land which he had sold to defendants No.2 and 3. He also admitted that defendants No.2 and 3 were owners in possession of the suit land and had purchased the property from defendant No.1 for valuable consideration. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit property was coparcenary property of defendant no.1. Since defendant no.1 had got the property from his father by virtue of Will, it become self-acquired property and he could dispose of the same in the manner he liked. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. October 29, 2009. (SABINA) Seema-II Judge