R.S.A.No.5160 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.5160 of 2003 Date of Decision : 03.08.2009 Maya Devi ...Appellant Versus Chameli Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.V.Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Rao D.S.Nirban, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the decree dated 24.2.1981 suffered by her father Deena Ram in favour of Chameli, another daughter of Deena Ram. It was alleged that the said decree is based upon fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The said decree was challenged in a suit filed on 15.6.1982 i.e. during the life-time of her father Deena Ram. The trial Court returned a finding that the property is a joint Hindu property and the family settlement allegedly arrived at by Deena Ram in favour of Chameli-defendant No.1, was found to be result of fraud and misrepresentation. The said judgment and R.S.A.No.5160 of 2003 2 decree was set aside in appeal. The first Appellate Court found that the ancestral property is the one, which he holds alongwith with his sons, son's sons and son's son's sons, but as regards other relations, the property is held as an absolute property. Thus, it was held that Deena Ram was the absolute owner of the property and he could suffer decree in favour of one of his daughter namely Chameli. Such decree will not require registration, as the same is between the members of the same family. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs are the members of joint Hindu family of Deena Ram and, thus, the alleged family settlement arrived at with one of the daughters, when the other two daughters are minor is a nullity. It has been found by the learned trial Court itself that the appellant has not even pleaded that the decree is bad on account of their minority in the suit. The only challenge was that the property in the hands of Deena Ram was a joint Hindu family property, thus, he could not suffer decree in favour of one of his daughter. The said argument is not tenable. In a joint Hindu Family property, the daughters do not have the birth right. The property in the hands of Deena Ram is his absolute property and, thus, he was free to enter upon any settlement with any member of his family. He has suffered decree in favour of his one daughter i.e. Chameli. The plaintiffs are also his daughters and also stand on the same footing, but they cannot claim any birth right in the property of Deena Ram, which could be made subject matter of the challenge in the present suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that since R.S.A.No.5160 of 2003 3 defendant No.1 has denied relationship, therefore, it is an act of fraud. Once on evidence, a finding has been returned that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Deena Ram, mere plea raised by the defendants in the written statement is not an act of fraud, which could render the decree dated 24.2.1981 as illegal, null & void. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court on the basis of findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court. Dismissed. 03.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE