R. S. A. No. 718 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 718 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Kanwal Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Bhargo Dev and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Avinash Mandla, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : The instant second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs, who have unsuccessful in both the courts below. All the three plaintiffs are real brothers of defendant no.1. They have another brother Charan Singh – father of defendants no.2 and 3. Defendant no.3 Ajit Singh has since died and is now represented by respondents no.3 to 6 as his legal representatives. Plaintiffs' claim is that defendant no.1 is of unsound mind. Plaintiffs and Charan Singh had been looking after defendant no.1. However, defendants no.2 and 3 obtained thumb impressions of defendant R. S. A. No. 718 of 2010 2 no.1 on blank stamp paper and prepared a fake relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2001 (Annexure D-1) in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 regarding share of defendant no.1 in the suit land. The said relinquishment deed is result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was never executed by defendant no.1, who is of unsound mind. The suit land is ancestral and the parties are members of joint Hindu family and are governed by agricultural custom. On these averments, plaintiff sought declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 26.07.2001 is null and void. Permanent injunction restraining defendants no.2 and 3 from alienating the share of defendant no.1 was also sought in the plaint. Defendant no.1, in his written statement, controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that he is unmarried and issueless. He used to live with his brother Charan Singh, whose sons – defendants no.2 and 3 used to render services to defendant no.1 and used to look after him, whereas plaintiffs have separated from him about 40 years ago and the land was also partitioned. Defendant no.1 claimed that he is mentally fit and in family settlement, he gave the suit land to defendants no.2 and 3 and to confirm the same, he executed release deed dated 26.07.2001 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 of his free will and consent and without any pressure. He has alienated the suit land in favour of the defendants no.2 and 3 in accordance with agricultural custom. The release deed is legal and valid. Defendants no.2 and 3 also filed similar written statement as R. S. A. No. 718 of 2010 3 that of defendant no.1. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Jhajjar. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The plaintiffs have failed to lead any evidence to prove that defendant no.1 is of unsound mind. On the other hand, plaintiffs and their witnesses admitted that defendant no.1 is fit and fine and he also works and is capable to move. It is thus apparent that defendant no.1 is not of unsound mind. On the other hand, defendant no.1 himself contested the suit. The plaintiffs did not sue defendant no.1 through any guardian, although a person of unsound mind cannot be sued himself, but has to be sued through some guardian. Be that as it may, there is not even iota of evidence on record to depict that defendant no.1 is of unsound mind. The release deed in question cannot be said to be result of fraud or misrepresentation, when defendant no.1, who executed the said release deed, has himself admitted in his written statement that he has executed the said release deed in favour of defendants no.2 and 3. Defendants have also led other evidence to prove due execution of the release deed. It is thus manifest that release deed in R. S. A. No. 718 of 2010 4 question is not result of fraud or misrepresentation. Defendant no.1 is admittedly unmarried and issueless. Even under agricultural custom, a sonless proprietor has right to alienate his property in favour of near relations in lieu of services rendered. In the instant case, defendant no.1 has himself pleaded that defendants no.2 and 3 have been looking after him and even rendering him services. Defendants no.2 and 3 are close relatives of defendant no.1, being sons of his real brother. Consequently, defendant no.1, being sonless proprietor,was competent to alienate his land in favour of his nephews i.e. defendants no.2 and 3, in lieu of services rendered by them to him. The release deed cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below non-suiting the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs have no case at all. The instant appeal is completely meritless. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE