R.S.A.No. 3112 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3112 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2011 Karnail Singh ......Appellant Versus Nazar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. V.G.Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant No.1 was the father of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 and Darshan Singh (since deceased). The land in dispute was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, however, alienated the suit land to his other sons, grand sons and strangers in order to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 to 5, in their written statement, denied R.S.A.No. 3112 of 2010(O&M) 2 the averments made in the plaint that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1. It was averred that the suit property was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and hence, he could dispose of the same in the manner he liked. Defendants No.6 and 7, in their written statement, denied the fact that the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. It was averred that defendant No.1 had executed a Will dated 10.1.1997 and sale deeds in favour of sons of Darshan Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and joint possession as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Hence, the present R.S.A.No. 3112 of 2010(O&M) 3 appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1. Plaintiff was required to establish that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. However, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that in the absence of any evidence to the effect that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1, he could dispose of the same in the manner he liked. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 15, 2011 anita