R.S.A.No. 4019 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4019 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.4.2011 Dinesh Kumar ......Appellant Versus Shiv Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the relinquishment deed dated 27.1.2006 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant o.1 qua the suit land. It was averred that the said deed was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the parties constituted a Joint Hindu Family. Defendant No.2 was the karta of the family. The suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.2 and hence, no relinquishment deed could be executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 qua the suit R.S.A.No. 4019 of 2010 2 land. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that defendant No.2 was owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 had become owner of the suit land on the basis of relinquishment deed in dispute executed by defendant No.2 in his favour. Defendant No.2 had given ` 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of purchase of house by him. Defendant No.2 had also given ` 1,00,000/- to defendant No.3. The remaining plot measuring 1 kanal had been retained by defendant No.2 for himself, his wife and three daughters. Defendant No.2 was residing with defendant No.1 and was being looked after by him. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, averred that he had already paid ` 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff for purchase of the house and ` 1,00,000/- to defendant No.3. The plaintiff was residing at Jagadhari, whereas, defendant No.3 was residing at Ambala. The relinquishment deed had been executed by answering defendant in favour of defendant No.1 qua 10 marlas of land out of khasra No.50//21/1/3. Defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte as he had failed to appear despite service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the relinquishment deed dated 27.1.2006 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 with regard to the suit land is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled R.S.A.No. 4019 of 2010 3 to relief of declaration as prayed for by him ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by him ? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD 5. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.2. However, the plaintiff had failed to establish the said plea as defendant No.2 had admittedly got the suit property by virtue of Will dated 16.12.1981 executed by Banu Mal, father of defendant No.2. Since defendant No.2 had not inherited the suit property by way of natural succession and had rather got the suit property on the basis of Will, the same could not be described to be ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.2. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish the ancestral nature of the suit property. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that defendant No.2 was competent to execute a relinquishment deed in favour of defendant R.S.A.No. 4019 of 2010 4 No.1 as he was exclusive owner of the suit property and the suit property could not be described to be ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.2. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2011 anita