R.S.A.No.3502 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3502 of 2006 Date of Decision : 11.09.2009 Siri Chand and another ...Appellants Versus Smt. Jantari and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramesh Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. J.V.Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration holding decree dated 28.11.1997, is null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, was decreed. Lalman, father of plaintiff No.2, suffered the aforesaid decree in favour of his brothers Siri Chand and Hoshiyar. It was alleged that the property in the hands of defendant No.3 Lalman was a Joint Hindu Family property, in which the plaintiffs have a right by birth, whereas the said decree suffered by Lalman in favour of his borthers is illegal, null & void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, who are sons of Lalman. In the written-statement, it was admitted that the property is ancestral and all the three brothers i.e. Lalman, Siri Chand and Hoshiyar have inherited the property in equal shares, but since wrong shares were R.S.A.No.3502 of 2006 2 mentioned in the revenue record, therefore, a suit was filed against Lalman to correct their respective shares. Therefore, the said decree is based upon a family settlement orally effected between three brothers and cannot be made subject matter of challenge by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have decreed the suit and returned a finding that the disputed property is ancestral property and was not partitioned. Defendant Lalman while appearing as DW-4 has denied that he ever engaged any counsel or made any statement before the Court, which led to the decree dated 28.11.1997. Still further, defendant Hoshiyar while appearing as DW-1 has stated that he has never appeared in the case, which led to decree dated 28.11.1997 nor he was present at the time, when the statements were recorded nor the decree was passed in his presence. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded that there is no evidence of mistake in the revenue record. The learned first Appellate Court also held that there could not be family settlement, which may led to decree dated 28.11.1997. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the statements of Lalman DW-4 and that of Hoshiyar DW-1 have been misread. However, the perusal of the statements, produced by the counsel for the parties during the course of hearing, does not suggest any misreading of evidence. The alleged family settlement by Lalman in presence of his sons, with his brothers in respect of his share is nothing, but fraudulent. Lalman, while appearing as a witness, has denied having R.S.A.No.3502 of 2006 3 suffered a decree in favour of his brothers. The statements referred to by the learned first Appellate Court are the correct statements. The argument raised that statements have been misread remains unsubstantiated. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 11.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE