RSA No. 2584 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2584 of 2008 Decided on : 17-04-2009 Dhanwant Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Kehar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 3.10.2005 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 1.4.2008. The plaintiffs filed a suit pleading that the land in dispute was ancestral which was allotted to Sampuran Singh his great grandfather in Pakistan and after his death the land was inherited by Tara Singh and after his death defendant no. 1 namely Kehar Singh inherited the property. Defendant no.1 threatened to alienate the suit property and and consequently suffered a sale deed on 30.1.87 in favour of defendant no.2 namely Gurdev Singh. The others arrayed as defendant no. 4 to 7 in connivance with defendant no.1 obtained a collusive decree on 1.12.97 in favour of defendant no.1 passed in civil suit no. 282 of 1996 titled as 'Jatinder Singh etc. versus Kehar Singh'. They pleaded that this decree be declared as null and void as it was result of fraud and mis-representation and that defendant no.1 had no right to alienate the same since the property RSA No. 2584 of 2008 2 was ancestral. The defendants-respondents disputed the averments made in the plaint and they pleaded that defendant no.1 was the owner of the land and was competent to transfer it. It is pleaded that in the proceedings initiated in the civil suit no. 282 of 1996 the present appellants had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading them as party but the same was dismissed and it was thereafter that the suit was decreed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs-appellants had no right or title over the suit property. It was denied that the property was ancestral. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the land measuring 27K as prayed for ?OPP. 3. Whether the sale deed dated 30.1.87 is null and void?OPP. 4. Whether the sale deed dated 1.12.97 is also null and void?OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 7-A Whether the land in dispute is joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 7?OPP. 8. Relief. Both the Courts concluded that there is no evidence to show that the suit property was ancestral as claimed by the appellants and RSA No. 2584 of 2008 3 therefore, dismissed the suit of the appellants who have preferred the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the the impugned judgments. Both the Courts have concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the plea that the property was ancestral. A perusal of the entire judgments show that the findings cannot be termed to be erroneous as no revenue record was exhibited before the Courts below, even though some documents were attached with the suit. In this view of the matter, when absolutely no evidence worth the name was produced by the appellants, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous so as to warrant interference in regular second appeal especially when no substantial question of law has been shown to have been arisen in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 17, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge