C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 in RSA No.4494 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 in RSA No.4494 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2011 Ramshaminder Singh .....Appellant v. Gamdoor Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.C.Arora, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 29.8.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.13414-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4494 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.9.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 in RSA No.4494 of 2010(O&M) -2- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed for possession of land in dispute by appellant-plaintiff challenging sale deeds executed by his grand father and father, i.e., defendants no.3 and 4 to respondents- defendants no.1 and 2. Plea has been taken that the property is joint Hindu Family property consisting of appellant-plaintiff and respondents- defendants no.3 and 4 and hence, the same could not be sold without legal necessity. On notice being issued, the suit was contested by respondents- defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the suit has been filed by the present appellant-plaintiff at the instance of his father. It is further pleaded that earlier Lal Singh, grand father of present appellant-plaintiff and Gurvinder Kaur, mother of appellant-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.324-1 of 3.11.2000 for possession of the property in dispute and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002. Plea has also been taken that Jarnail Singh, brother of plaintiff's father and Gurcharan Kaur filed another suit No.9-1 of 13.1.1999 for declaration against defendants no.1 to 3 and father of the plaintiff challenging the sale deed dated 2071 dated 2.11.1988 again claiming the property in dispute, to be joint Hindu Family Property and the said suit was also dismissed on 17.4.2002 and that in this suit as well plaintiff has challenged the same sale deeds executed by his grand-father Lal Singh including sale deed No.2071 dated 1.11.1988. On merits it is denied that plaintiff constituted a joint Hindu family with his father and grand father and that the property in dispute was joint property C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 in RSA No.4494 of 2010(O&M) -3- of the said Joint Hindu family. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the property in dispute is proved to be Joint Hindu Family property of the parties and that there is also presumption regarding jointness of the family and hence, it is contended that the impugned sale deeds cannot be held to be valid. Appellant-plaintiff has challenged sale deeds executed by Lal Singh, his grand-father on 5.3.1987 and on 2.11.1988. He has also challenged sale deed dated 24.6.1988 executed by his father, Karnail Singh. The property is situated in revenue estate of village Sotha. The only jamabandi placed on the record regarding the land situated in village Sotha is Ex.P3 for the year 1984-85 showing Lal Singh to be owner to the extent of 1/3rd share. However, no other revenue record has been produced to show that the property was inherited by Lal Singh from his father or the same was joint Hindu family property in his hands. It has also been held by both the Courts below that no convincing evidence has been adduced by plaintiff to prove that Lal Singh was having Joint Hindu family with his brother and that the property was joint Hindu family property. Hence, both the Courts below have held that Lal Singh being exclusive owner was having right to deal with the property in dispute in any manner and the present appellant-plaintiff is having no right to challenge the same. Further the property sold by Karnail Singh was purchased by him from one C.M.No.11754-C of 2011 in RSA No.4494 of 2010(O&M) -4- Mohinder Singh and Inderpal Singh etc. even before sale of land by Lal Singh. There is no evidence that the sale consideration was allegedly contributed from the income of Joint Hindu family. Hence, property in the hands of Karnail Singh also could not be proved to be joint Hindu family property. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 21.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge