Regular Second Appeal No. 3969 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3969 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.9.2011 *** Roshan & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Babu Ram & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay condoned. This is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below holding the plaintiff as owner in possession of the house in dispute and further restrained the appellants- defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff thereupon. Initially the suit was filed by Babu Ram and Rajbir sons of Mani Ram. However, after the death of Rajbir, his legal heirs i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 were impleaded as respondents. It is apt to mention here that appellant No.1 Roshan and appellant No.3 Roshni are son and daughter while appellant No.2 Laxmi is the widow of Mani Ram respectively. The dispute between the parties revolves around the house which was earlier owned by Mani Ram. It has come on record that the house in dispute was purchased by Mani Ram during his lifetime. Both the parties did not dispute the factum of oral partition by Mani Ram in respect of his estate. However, according to the plaintiff the house in dispute had fallen to their share in the said family partition whereas according to the defendants Regular Second Appeal No. 3969 of 2011 2 the said house was retained by Mani Ram and after his death it had fallen to their share. Admittedly, none of the parties produced any documentary proof with regard to alleged partition. However, it has come on record that whatever share was received by appellant Roshan, he sold the same and left the village. Moreover, he failed to even stepped into the witness box in support of his claim. Admittedly, appellant Roshni Devi, the daughter of Mani Ram was married and there was no question of her acquiring the estate of her father, as per the Hindu Succession Act. So far as appellant Laxmi Devi is concerned, it has come on record that she never resided on the suit property and left the village along with her son Roshan, who sold his share and then went away from the village. Although the appellants claimed their right on the suit house on the basis of some Will alleged to have been executed by Mani Ram in their favour, but no such Will was produced. Even appellant Laxmi Devi did not prefer to enter the witness box. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the house in dispute had fallen to the share of plaintiffs and defendants never came into its possession. The appellants though staked their claim on the basis of some agreement to sell executed by them in favour of one Satpal by dint of which they agreed to sell the house in dispute, being owner, but in the light of the fact that they were held not owners and in possession of the house in dispute, the said transaction created by them does not confer any right. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. Hence, finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 30,2011 Jiten