R.S.A. No. 1920 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1920 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 Surjeet Singh and others ...Appellants. Versus Ranbir and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having lost before the courts below, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat dated 8.9.2006, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 constituted a Joint Hindu Family and were coparceners and the land measuring 13 kanals 11 marlas being the share of the total land measuring 62 kanals 13 marlas, detailed in para 1 of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of village Tajpur Tihara Khura, Tehsil and District Sonepat as per jamabandi for the year 1992- R.S.A. No. 1920 of 2008 -2- 93 (for short, the “suit property”) was possessed by them and defendant No.3 was the Karta of the same. It was pleaded that defendant No.3 being Karta of the HUF, sold the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 3.1.1997 without any legal necessity and benefit of the Joint Hindu Family and without the consent of the plaintiffs. They claimed a decree for declaration to the effect that the said sale deed was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as they were equally entitled to get their respective shares in the suit land and they continued in actual physical possession of the same. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants on the basis of the sale deed were adamant to dispossess them from the suit land forcibly and illegally. As a consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also sought. To controvert the suit of the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit property was neither a Joint Hindu Family property, coparcenary nor were the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 members of any HUF. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 had three sons and four daughters and the sale of the suit property was for legal necessity as he had to incur expenses for the marriage of his sons and daughters. Defendant No.3 had also taken a loan from Sahibo daughter of Chander Pati daughter of defendant No.3 and Raj Singh son of Suraj Mal for Bhat and other essential ceremonies to be performed on the marriages of his children. According to the defendants, the sale was perfectly legal and binding on the plaintiffs and R.S.A. No. 1920 of 2008 -3- that as the possession of the suit land was actually delivered to them, they continued in cultivating possession thereof. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that though the suit property was a Joint Hindu Family property but the sale deed dated 3.1.1997 in respect thereof was perfectly legal and justified as the same was for legal necessity. It was further held that the plaintiffs were neither entitled to the possession of the suit property nor to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs No.1 and 3 took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 dismissed the appeal while affirming the findings recorded by the trial court. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has made an attempt to persuade this Court to reappreciate the evidence led by the parties before the trial court so as to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate Court appreciating the case from both angles i.e., in case the suit property was not ancestral property of Hukam Chand and also in case it was held to be HUF property, R.S.A. No. 1920 of 2008 -4- concluded the sale deed dated 3.1.1997 to be valid. According to the lower appellate Court, in the event of suit property not being ancestral property, Hukam Chand being absolute owner of the same had right to alienate the same vide sale deed dated 3.1.1997 to defendants No.1 and 2. Alternatively, in the event of the nature of the suit property to be HUF, the sale was held to be for legal necessity. The appeal was consequently dismissed. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the judgments and decrees of Courts below. Further, no misreading of any evidence available on record by the courts below has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellants warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 12, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE