-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4534 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 09 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4534 of 2010 (O&M). Ajit Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Bikkar Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Ajit Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 22.12.1993 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit land, described in the plaint, was without legal necessity as also -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4534 of 2010 (O&M). against the interests of the Joint Hindu Family and for restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from alienating the suit land and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the same was dismissed. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Defendant No.3 Ram Rakha is the father of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.3 Bikkar Singh. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family co-parcenary property in the hands of defendant No.3. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant did not lead any evidence to show that the suit property was inherited by defendant No.3 Ram Rakha by survivorship or by succession or by any other way. The plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that defendant No.3 had inherited the suit property from his forefathers and was divided amongst the male members. It has come in the cross- examination of defendant Bikkar Singh (D.W.7) that in order to equalize the division of property, land measuring 19 Kanals -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4534 of 2010 (O&M). was sold by defendant No.3 Ram Rakha in favour of the sons of the plaintiff by way of sale deed dated 23.12.1993. Strangely enough, the plaintiff-appellant, in the instant suit, challenged the sale deed dated 22.12.1993 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 taking the ground that the suit land subject matter of sale deed dated 22.12.1993 was coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property, but the plaintiff is silent about the subject matter of land of sale deed dated 23.12.1993 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the sons of the plaintiff-appellant. If the property subject matter of sale deed dated 22.12.1993 was coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property and defendant No.3 was not competent to sell the same in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, then, obviously, defendant No.3 could not sell the property subject matter of sale deed dated 23.12.1993 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the sons of the plaintiff, the same being allegedly coparcenary property. Besides, as per Jamabandi (Exhibit P.1) for the year 1990-91, the plaintiff is recorded as co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 1/16 share. Therefore, he was required to explain as to how he acquired 1/16 share in the suit property independently if the suit property was coparcenary and Joint Hindu family property. To put it differently, if the plaintiff- appellant had purchased this 1/16 share in the suit land from his own income, then it was not a Joint Hindu Family property and if he had purchased this share in the suit land with the income -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 4534 of 2010 (O&M). of the Joint Hindu Family, then he was required to get the sale deed of this 1/16 share in the suit property executed in the name of defendant No.3 i.e `Karta' of the Joint Hindu Family property. The plaintiff having not put this 1/16 share in the suit land in the common pool and, rather, having claimed independent right therein, he is precluded from claiming that the land subject matter of the impugned sale deed was coparcenary qua the plaintiff-appellant. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 09, 2011. JUDGE ak