Regular Second Appeal No.472 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No.472 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 07.12.2011 Bhagwan Dass Kaushik ....Appellant Vs. Smt. Channo Devi and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate, & Mr. Ramesh Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 1272-C of 2009 No grounds are made out to implead the applicant as party defendant. Dismissed. RSA No. 472 of 2009 Smt. Channo Devi-plaintiff-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she has become owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land on the demise of her son Banwari Lal, out of the land mentioned in para No.2 (i) of the plaint. She had Regular Second Appeal No.472 of 2009 (O&M) 2 also claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling her 1/4th share. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 04.04.2007, decreed her suit. The appeal preferred by the defendants- respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (herein referred as 'the defendants') was also dismissed with costs, vide judgment dated 29.07.2008. In brief, the facts are that one Niadar was the owner of the suit land measuring 80 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Daultabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, as fully described in para No. 2(i) of the plaint. The said Niadar had transferred the aforesaid land in the name of his wife Smt. Chhajia by way of a Civil Court decree dated 20.08.1979. Smt. Chhanno Devi-plaintiff was his only daughter. Later on Smt. Chhajia was married with Balwant Singh and Banwari Lal (since deceased) was born out of their wedlock. The defendants are the legal heirs of Banwari Lal. Smt. Chhajia had transferred the suit land in the name of Banwari Lal through a Civil Court decree dated 13.02.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 101 of 1984. The plaintiff has stated that on the death of Banwari Lal, the suit property was to be inherited by his Class-I legal heirs i.e. Poonam, widow, Vikas, minor son, Samikshya, daughter and the plaintiff- Channo Devi, in equal shares each. The defendants contested the cause by filing written statement stating that Banwari Lal had not died a natural death, but he was killed and the plaintiff was one of the conspirators to kill him, thus, she could not claim any right in the suit land left by him. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues Regular Second Appeal No.472 of 2009 (O&M) 3 were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff has become owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the land in question, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not within the limitation? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court, while holding that the decree dated 13.02.1984 suffered by Banwari Lal was collusive and did not bind the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred the appeal, which was dismissed. However, the defendants have not preferred any regular second appeal, whereas one Bhagwan Dass Kaushik, who claims himself to be a subsequent vendee of the suit land, has filed this second appeal. Now the question arises, as to “whether Bhagwan Dass Kaushik-appellant, a subsequent vendee, could prefer the appeal?” In this regard, it may be observed that he was never a party to the suit or appeal. The application moved by him to implead him as party appellant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The appellant having purchased the property subsequently from the defendants would step into their shoes. Regular Second Appeal No.472 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The defendants having not challenged the impugned judgment by way of regular second appeal, the appellant is not competent to challenge the same by way of this appeal. He is to swim and sink with the defendants. Thus, the appeal preferred by him is not competent. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) December 07, 2011 JUDGE ajp