RSA No.2835 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2835 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2011 Ranbir Singh ……Appellant Versus Smt. Kamlesh Yadav and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.8538-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 9 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal. Plaintiff No.2-Ranbir Singh has filed the instant second appeal after the plaintiffs i.e appellant and proforma respondent No.5-Balbir-plaintiff No.1 failed in both the Courts below. Plaintiffs in the suit challenged consent judgment and decree dated 15.06.1999 suffered by their father Gokal Singh defendant No.2 (since deceased) in favour of his other son Narpat Singh-defendant No.1 (since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.1 to 4 as his legal representatives) alleging that the RSA No.2835 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - suit land was ancestral coparcenary property and, therefore, plaintiffs had 1/3rd share each in it by birth. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that plaintiffs were residing separately from defendant No.2 since long and were not having joint family with him. Suit land was self acquired property of defendant No.2. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Sole basis to challenge the consent decree in question is that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.2. However, plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish the same. On the contrary, it is established beyond doubt that suit land was self acquired property of defendant No.2 as he had purchased it vide sale deed Ex-D-1. In fact, even plaintiff No.1 while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 himself admitted that his father Gokal Singh-defendant No.2 had purchased the suit land from Uday Raj in the year 1965. Plaintiffs’ other witness Jai Kishan PW-1 also admitted this fact. In view of aforesaid admissions and in view of sale deed Ex.D-1, it is proved beyond doubt that suit land was self RSA No.2835 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - acquired property of defendant No.2 and consequently, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein. As a necessary corollary, plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit to challenge the consent decree in question. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that consent decree in question was suffered on the basis of family settlement and on the basis that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property and, therefore, this fact is established. The contention cannot be accepted because there are admissions of plaintiffs and there is also documentary evidence to depict that suit land was self acquired property of defendant No.2. Plaintiff No.1 as well as plaintiffs’ witness Jai Kishan PW-1 also admitted that plaintiffs are residing separately from their father defendant No.2 since the year 1980 i.e. almost two decades before the passing of the consent decree in question. Thus plaintiffs did not form joint family with defendant No.2 when the consent decree was suffered. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 25.04.2011. A.kaundal