IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.4817 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22nd September, 2011 Kamla and another … Appellants Versus Badri Prasad and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No.14347-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and delay in making good the deficiency in Court fee is condoned. Civil Misc. No.14348-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed and delay of 111 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.4817 of 2010 The plaintiffs, having lost in two rounds of litigation, have preferred the present regular second appeal. They had instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the suit it was prayed that the sale deed dated 12th April, 2004 executed by Regular Second Appeal No.4817 of 2010 (O&M) their father, Badri Prasad-defendant No.1 to the suit, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the appellants-plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the said sale deed be set aside and plaintiffs be declared as owners in possession of the suit property in equal share with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. A further injunction was sought that defendant No.1- Badri Prasad be restrained from alienating the suit property. Plaintiff No.1-Kamla and plaintiff No.2-Santosh Devi are the daughters of defendant No.1-Badri Prasad, whereas defendants No.2 to 4 are their cousins and defendant No.5 is their nephew. It was pleaded in the suit that defendant No.1, being owner in possession of the agricultural land, had executed a sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 5. It was further pleaded that since the suit property was ancestral, the appellants-plaintiffs being daughters of defendant No.1-Badri Prasad had pre-existing right in the property and it could not be alienated to their exclusion. Upon notice, defendants appeared and took a stand that defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 according to his own sweet will. The crucial question which arose for consideration of the Court below was as to whether the suit property was ancestral or not and whether the defendant No.1-Badri Prasad, being father of the plaintiffs, could dispose of the property without any legal necessity. The trial Court held that even if the contention of the plaintiffs is taken at its face value that the property in the hands of Badri Prasad was ancestral property, the appellants-plaintiffs became coparceners only on 20th day 2 Regular Second Appeal No.4817 of 2010 (O&M) of December, 2004 when amendment was carried in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and a right was given to the daughters in the ancestral property. The Court held that since the impugned sale deed was executed on 12th April, 2004, the same suffers from no infirmity and is a valid document. This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Counsel for the appellants has failed to dislodge the concurrent findings given by both the courts below that the sale deed was executed on 12th April, 2004 and right in the ancestral property accrued to the appellants-plaintiffs only on 20th December, 2004. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings returned by both the courts below, especially when counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has failed to formulate any question of law much less a substantial one for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 22, 2011 rps 3