RSA No.1008 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1008 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.02.2011 Noor Mohd. ……Appellant Versus Chau Khan and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.2773-C of 2011 The application is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.2774-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.2775-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main appeal. Noor Mohd., who is son and legal representative of plaintiff-Mehtab Khan since deceased, has filed the instant second appeal, having failed in both the Courts below. The plaintiff in the suit challenged sale deeds dated 16.05.1994 and 17.05.1994 executed by defendant No.1-Chau Khan (since deceased) in favour of Mehboob Khan-defendant-respondent No.2 regarding the suit land. The sale deeds were challenged on the RSA No.1008 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 – ground that the same were without consideration and legal necessity and, therefore, in violation of the custom governing the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who were both real brothers. Defendants resisted the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 sold the suit land to defendant No.2 for consideration and legal necessity. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2010 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff through legal representative has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff’s legal representative has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Both the Courts below have held concurrently that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land and defendant No.1 validly sold the suit land to defendant No.2, who is now owner in possession thereof. It may be mentioned that the Courts below have found that the plaintiff has even failed to prove that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Chau Khan vendor. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and has not been assailed by advancing any meaningful argument. Consequently, the plaintiff had no right to challenge the alienation thereof on the ground of being in violation of custom. In addition to it, Chau Khan had no RSA No.1008 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 – male issue, but has left behind two daughters only. Consequently, being last male holder, Chau Kahn was also competent to alienate the suit land. Thus the plaintiff either way had no right to challenge the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. There is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 28.02.2011 (L. N. MITTAL) A.kaundal JUDGE