RSA No.4965 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4965 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:11.11.2010. Balwinder Kaur @ Baljit and another ...Appellants Versus Harcharan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which their suit for declaration to the effect that the release deed No.1024/1 dated 22.09.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and consequent mutation No.9726 and the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 13 are illegal, null an void, has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that one Tirlok Singh was recorded as owner in possession of ancestral agricultural land measuring 56 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated in village Assandh, District Karnal. Plaintiff No.1- Balwinder Kaur is the widow of Pritpal Singh; while plaintiff No.2 – Parminder Kaur is her daughter. It is alleged that Pritpal Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2, was in cultivating possession of the land to the extent of his share and after his death, the plaintiffs have RSA No.4965 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** stepped into his shoes, but defendant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with each other, deprived them of their right in the ancestral property because of the release deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and further various sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 12. In the joint written statement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had denied the right of the plaintiffs on the ground that the land in dispute was self acquired property of Tirlok Singh which was purchased by him in the year 1967 from one Kundan S/o Kartar Singh and the other property came to Tirlok Singh by virtue of Civil Court decree bearing Civil Suit No.876 dated 08.05.1972. Thus, the core issue was about the nature of the land in dispute as to whether it was ancestral or not? Both the Courts below had returned a concurrent finding of fact that the property in dispute in the hands of Tirlok Singh was not ancestral, therefore, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had no right by birth in the suit property and as such, they had no locus standi to assail the release deed and the sale deeds based upon it. In the present appeal as well, learned counsel for the appellants has miserably failed to prove the ancestral nature of the suit property, therefore, no question of law much-less substantial has arisen in this appeal for the purpose of adjudication by this Court, in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. November 11, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE