R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 1 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.1.2011 Jasbir Singh Gill ......Appellant Versus Avtar Singh .......Respondent And R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) Jasbir Singh Gill ......Appellant Versus Avtar Singh .......Respondent ****** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Ms. R.K. Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Vide this judgment the above noted appeals are being disposed of as the suit(s) filed by Jasbir Singh and Avtar Singh were consolidated and were disposed of by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5.2.2009. Jasbir Singh Gill-Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the suit property was ancestral property of the parties. Defendant No.2 Dharam Singh, father of the R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 2 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) plaintiff, had inherited the property from his father. Defendant No.2 was karta of joint hindu family and had made certain alienations qua the ancestral property. Defendant No.2 had executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1 dated 24.9.1999 and 3.11.1999 without any legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. Hence, the said sale deeds were liable to be set aside. Defendants, in their written statements, denied that the suit property was ancestral property of the parties or that the parties were members of joint hindu family. It was averred that Dharam Singh had earlier sold some property and had spent the amount received by him on the education of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.2 had sold the remaining suit land to defendant No.1 as defendant No.2 was exclusive owner of the said land. Defendant No.2 was suffering from various diseases and had to spend the amount on his treatment and due to this reason he had executed sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the alienation made by def. no. 2 the karta of JHF vide two registered sale deeds dated 24.9.1999 and 03.11.1999 of land detained in the head note of the plaint are null and void as the same are without any legal necessity and not for the benefit of estate ? OPP. 1.(a) Whether the suit property is ancestral coparcenary property ? OPP. 2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 3 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) land ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and no joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 7. Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly signed, verified and instituted as per law ? OPD. 9. Relief.” Avtar Singh had filed suit for permanent injunction that defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession as he was owner of the suit land. In the said suit, Jasbir Singh in his written statement alongwith counter claim averred that the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Dharam Singh. Hence, Jasbir Singh Gill was a co-sharer in the ancestral property to the extent of half share. The sale deeds executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Avtar Singh dated 24.9.1999 and 11.3.1999 were illegal, null and void and without any legal necessity. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property ? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 4 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) and suppressed the material facts ? OPP 3. Whether the suit land is coparcenary property and defendant is co- sharer to the suit land to the extent of 1/3 share ? OPD 4. Whether the defendant is entitled to permanent injunction for restraining the plaintiff from alienating the suit land ? OPD 5. Whether the defendant have no locus standi to file the counter claim ? OPP 6. Whether any cause of action arose in favour of the defendant to file the counter claim ? OPP 7. Whether the defendant has not come to the cosurt with clean hand by filing the counter claim ? OPP 8. Whether the counter claim is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPP 9. Relief.” Thereafter, vide order dated 30.11.2006 both the suits were consolidated. The suit filed by Jasbir Singh as well as counter claim filed by Jasbir Singh in the suit filed by Avtar Singh were dismissed. The suit filed by Avtar Singh was decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Jasbir Singh preferred two appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed by the District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009. Hence, the present appeals. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that both the appeals deserve dismissal. Jasbir Singh-appellant had failed to establish that the suit property was ancestral property of the parties. As per the revenue record, i.e. R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 5 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) copy of jamabandi for the years 1989-1990 and 1999-2000 Dharam Singh and Avtar Singh were described to be exclusive owners in possession of the suit land. The old documents, placed on record by the appellant, were in Urdu but their correct translations were not placed on record. P.W. 2 Mewa Singh Patwari, who had translated the record in Urdu, admitted that Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-29 were not the correct translated copies of documents Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-13. In Ex.P-27 he had not translated four columns of document Ex.P-10. There were 14 columns and he had only translated 10 columns. He had also not translated complete columns of Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. The said witness further admitted that old khasra numbers could not be connected with new khasra numbers during consolidation. Plaintiff had admitted that there was family settlement between the parties in the year 1984-85. Dharam Singh was residing with Avtar Singh whereas plaintiff was not residing with his father. The house situated in village Varpal came to the share of the plaintiff and he had sold the same for a sum of ` 1,25,000/- and had thereafter constructed the house at Amritsar in the year 1992. Dharam Singh had sold land to Pargat Singh and his wife vide two registered sale deeds and the said sale deeds were never challenged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was never described to be in possession of the said land rather Avtar Singh was described to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff further admitted that he had studied in Khalsa College, Amritsar and had thereafter joined Engineering College at Ludhiana and had started his own business as a contractor. A huge amount was paid by his R.S.A. No. 1399 of 2010 (O&M) & 6 R.S.A. No. 1403 of 2010 (O&M) father for running his business. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit property was not ancestral property in the hands of Dharam Singh. Rather Dharam Singh was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and hence was competent to execute the sale deeds in favour of Avtar Singh or anybody else. The sale deeds in question executed by Dharam Singh in favour of Avtar Singh Ex.D1 dated 3.11.1999 and Ex.D-3 dated 24.9.1999 were duly proved by Avtar Singh by examining the marginal witnesses. Moreover, Dharam Singh had also admitted the execution of the said sale deeds in favour of Avtar Singh for consideration. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals which would warrant interference by this Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2011 Anand