RSA No.3076 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3076 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Krishan Lal and others .....Appellants Vs. Smt.Nano Devi and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 6.4.2004 and 15.2.2008, passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dabwali and the Additional Distt. Judge,Fast Track Court, Sirsa, dismissing their suit and their appeal. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration that the judgement and decree dated 13.1.1988, passed by the Civil Judge, Ist Class, Dabwali, is void, as they are owners in possession of equal share in land measuring 13 kanals 14 marlas being 1/5th share of the land detailed in the suit. The appellants pleaded that in the year 1985, pursuant to a family settlement, their father respondent no.2 delivered possession of the suit land to them. However, as the revenue record could not be corrected, respondent no.2 suffered a collusive decree in favour of respondent no.1. It is asserted RSA No.3076 of 2009 2 that in view of the family settlement, respondent no.2 had no right to suffer a collusive decree in favour of respondent no.1. In opposition to the averments in the plaint, respondent no.1 denied the family settlement and stated that as respondent no.2 was absolute owner of the suit land, he could suffer the decree in her favour. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 is in possession of the suit land and as the suit is devoid of any merit, the suit be dismissed. After framing issues and calling upon the parties to lead evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellants had no locus-standi to challenge the decree, as the right if any, is available to their father alone. It was also held that as the appellants have failed to establish possession over the suit land, they are not entitled to a declaration of ownership or a decree for possession. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 15.2.2008, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are illegal and void. The courts below have wrongly non-suited the appellants on the ground of their locus-standi to challenge the decree suffered by their father. It is argued that respondent no.2 had no right, in view of the prior family settlement to alienate the suit land or to alienate it without legal necessity. In the absence of registration of the decree, the collusive decree suffered by respondent no.2, does not confer title upon respondent no.1. It is argued that as the judgement and decree dated 13.1.1988 is void ab initio, the courts below committed an RSA No.3076 of 2009 3 error in dismissing their suit and appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgements and decrees and express my inability to accede to the arguments addressed by counsel for the appellants. The courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that as respondent no.2 has suffered a decree in favour of respondent no.1, the appellants have no right to challenge the decree. The courts below have also held that the appellants have failed to prove their possession or any right to claim ownership or possession of the suit land. The arguments that respondent no.2 had no right to alienate the suit land, as it is coparcenary property cannot be accepted as the appellants have failed to produce any evidence to establish this plea. The validity of the judgement and decree dated 13.1.1988 has been rightly upheld by the courts below, as during the life time of their father, the appellants have no locus-standi to challenge the alienation made by him. In view of what has been stated herein above, as no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11.9.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE