RSA No. 964 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 964 of 2009 Date of decision: February 24,2011 Moti Lal .....Appellant Versus Tirath Ram and Others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Chauhan,Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 were owners in possession in equal shares of the house in dispute. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the house in dispute was ancestral residential house of Banta Ram. Banta Ram died in the year 1973 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 as his legal representatives . The pedigree table as reproduced RSA No. 964 of 2009 2 in para 1 of the plaint is as under:- Banta Ram (died) ! _______________________________________________________ ! ! ! ! Lal Chand Satya Shallo Vidya (son) (Daughter) (Daughter) ( Daughter ) (died) ! _________________________________ ! ! ! Tarsem Natha Tejpal (Son) (Son) (Son) Defendant No.1 threatened the plaintiffs to vacate the house in dispute alleging that he had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 16.12.1998. Defendant No.1 in his written statement averred that Lal Chand was owner of the property in dispute and the answering defendant had purchased the same from Lal Chand vide sale deed dated 16.10.1998. Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and possession as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD 4.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD RSA No. 964 of 2009 3 6.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 7. Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoshiarpur decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 5 were owners in equal shares of the suit property. Plaintiff-Satya had 1/4th share in the suit property and plaintiff-Shallo now represented through her legal representatives had 1/4th share, defendant No.2-Lal Chand had 1/4th share and Vidya now represented through her legal representatives defendants No. 3 to 5 had 1/4th share. The sale deed dated 16.10.1998 was held legal and valid qua 1/4th share of defendant No.2 and sale deed qua 3/4th share of the suit property was held to be illegal and void. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Banta Ram was the owner of the property in dispute. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and Vidya were the children of Banta Ram. Hence, after his death, all the children of Banta Ram got 1/4th share in the suit property. In these circumstances, defendant No.1 could execute the sale deed only qua his share in the suit property and not qua the share of his sisters. Although plaintiffs had stated that the suit property was ancestral property of Banta Ram but no documentary evidence had been led in this regard. In these RSA No. 964 of 2009 4 circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the sale deed was valid qua the share of defendant No.2. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 24, 2011 arya