R.S.A No. 557 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 557 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : May 10, 2010 Rajender Parshad and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Hari Parkash Joshi and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the findings of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellants. The appellants had filed a civil suit claiming that respondent No.1 had no right to sell the entire house bearing MC.84, Mohalla Jatwara Bawal since it was the house of their father and owned by his five sons. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that respondent No.1 could only alienate 1/5th share of the property and could not alienate the whole of the R.S.A No. 557 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: house. In appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed this finding. The lower appellate Court based this reversal on the fact that the only documents of title viz Exs. PX and PY related to one house bearing No.1261. Consequently, the lower appellate Court held that the appellants were not able to link their alleged title of House No.MC.84. Finding that the appellants being the plaintiffs could not substantiate their case, the suit was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge are manifest illegal, perverse and result of misreading of evidence and pleadings, hence the same deserve to be set aside and whereas the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court are based on lawful appraisal of the evidence deserve to be restored and maintained ? ii) Whether the residing of the plaintiff and proforma defendants at a place of their services would dis-entitle them from their co-ownership in the property in question ? iii) Whether mere water and electric connections, voter card, ration card etc. in the name of one co-sharer, can be treated as a document of title of the house in question ? iv) Whether the possession of one co-sharer is not for and on behalf of the other co-sharers ? v) Whether the claim of bona fide purchaser by R.S.A No. 557 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: defendant No.1, pre-supposes the title of the plaintiffs/persons against whom the said plea is being taken ? vi) Whether the discarding of house tax entries Exs. PX and PY only on the ground that the same number i.e 1261 does not tally with MC No.84, is illegal as the municipal numbers change ever year and in the absence of the plea that there is any other house of the parties of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants in the same vicinity ? vii) Whether in the absence of the plea of mode and manner as to how defendant No.2 acquired the title, the only inference can safely be drawn that the property house in question was inherited from his father ? viii) Whether the onus was not upon defendant No.1 to plead and prove the requisite conditions of making bona fide enquiries into the title of his vendor defendant No.2 ? ix) Whether with regard to the ancestral properties the title can be proved by oral evidence ? x) Whether the discarding of oral evidence of the plaintiffs by the learned District Judge is wholly illegal ? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are questions of fact. The main argument of counsel for the appellants is that respondent No.1 has not been able to prove that Ganeshi Lal their father had any other house in Bawal. In my opinion, it was not required of respondent No.1 to R.S.A No. 557 of 2008 (O&M) ::4:: prove this fact. Once the appellants were not able to link their ownership documents with House No.MC.84, there was no requirement for respondent No.1 to lead any evidence. Consequently, it has to be held that the appellants have not been able to prove their title to House No.MC.84. Resultantly, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 11, 2010. JUDGE `kk'