RSA No.720 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.720 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.1.2009 Omwati ......Appellant Versus Ramesh Chander and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 to 4 may be declared owner to the extent of 1/28th share instead of 1/7 in the gift deed bearing vasika No.3225 dated 21.11.2002 which they have donated to defendant No.5 qua the land measuring in khewat No.13, Khatauni No.13, rect. No.8, killa No.5/1(6-0), 6(8-0), 7/1(1-0), 14(8-0), 15(8-0), 16/1(5-0), rect. No.14, killa No.13/2(3-6), 18(7-8), 19(8-0), 22/1(2-0), Rect.No.25, killa No.18(8-0),19(8- 0), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 24/1(5-7) rect.No.27, killa No.11(9-1) rect. No.36 killa No.3(8-0), 8/1(4-4), khasra No.61(2-15), Giar Mumkin Gait, 256(1-1) Gair Mumkin Gait, 453(0-3),Gair Mumkin Gadda Khad, fields 21 total measuring 119 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Musepur, Tehsil and District Rewari, has been dismissed. The case of the plaintiff is that Maman who was her grandfather was having four sons namely Shri Ram, Shish Ram, Jas Ram and Hans Raj and three daughters. A family settlement was arrived in January, 2000 wherein it was admitted by Mahadai, Mishri and legal heirs of Brahma Devi that they would relinquish their share in favour of their four RSA No.720 of 2008 (O&M) 2 brothers in equal shares. It was alleged that defendant No.5 i.e. Shish Ram is a very shrewd person and he induced defendants No.1 to 4 who are legal heirs of Brahma Devi and obtained one gift deed of their share in his favour by way of registered sale deed bearing vasika No.3325 dated 21.11.2002 which is against the family settlement arrived at in January, 2000. As per the aforesaid settlement, defendant No.5 was entitled to receive only 1/28th share. The gift deed more than 1/28th share is wrong and liable to be set aside. It was further alleged that the plaintiff requested defendants No.1 to 5 to treat the said gift deed as cancelled but they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately they refused to accept her request. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 5 appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that Maman Ram was owner in possession of the suit land. The relationship and the pedigree table of Maman Ram was also admitted. However, they denied the alleged family settlement in January, 2000. It was also denied that defendant No.5 obtained the gift deed in his favour by way of inducement. It was also averred that defendants No.1 to 4 executed the gift deed at their own sweet will. Defendants No.1 to 4 had no objection on the said gift deed and thus the plaintiff had no locus standi to raise the objection to the said gift deed. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After considering the evidence of the parties, both the Courts below found that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. As per the averments made in the plaint, the alleged family RSA No.720 of 2008 (O&M) 3 settlement vide which Mahadai, Mishri and LRs of Brahma (daughters of Maman) are admitted to have relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiff and his three brothers, had taken place in January 2000 whereas admittedly Jas Ram father of the plaintiff died prior to that. This fact alone falsified the claim of the appellant that a family settlement had taken place between the four brothers and three sisters. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff in her plaint as well as in her statement on oath that on the death of Maman Ram all his seven children succeeded to the property of Maman Ram in equal share. In these circumstances, it is not conceivable and believable that the family settlement could have taken place after the death of Jas Ram. Even otherwise there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate her plea of family settlement. Defendants No.1 to 4 who are the legal representatives of Brahma Devi have categorically pleaded that they have executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.5 and they have no objection. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. January 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE