RSA No. 1640 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 05 , 2010 1. RSA No. 1640 of 2004 Harjinder Singh ...... Appellant Versus Harbans Singh and others ...... Respondents 2. RSA No.1641 of 2004 Harjinder Singh ...... Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 13. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 10 in RSA No.1641 of 2004 and respondents No. 1 to 10 in RSA No.1640 of 2004. Mr. P.S.Bhangu, Advocate for respondents No. 17 to 21 in RSA No. 1641 of 2004. **** RSA No. 1640 of 2004 2 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This judgment shall dispose of two RSAs bearing No. 1640 of 2004 and and 1641 of 2004 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. The facts are being taken from RSA No. 1640 of 2004. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside even the partial relief granted to the appellant by the trial Court and consequently dismissed his suit. The case of the appellant was that his grand father Jagir singh could not have alienated the land in dispute either by sale or by mortgage or by will since it was ancestral property and there was no legal necessity to effect the alienations. The learned trial Court held that Jagir Singh was not competent to will away any portion of the property since it was ancestral property. The learned Lower appellate court, however, held that even if part of the property was ancestral yet the appellant had taken the benefit of the sale in favour of his father. The learned Lower Appellate also came to the conclusion that the sale deeds made by Jagir Singh were for the benefit of the father of the appellant. Further the Lower Appellate court also held that the suit with regard to the sale deeds and mortgages was barred by time since the assertion of the appellant regarding his age was not acceptable. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the suit land is a coparcenary and joint Hindu family and the lower Appellate Court has gravely erred by setting aside the findings of the trial court by illegally holding RSA No. 1640 of 2004 3 that the suit land is not a joint Hindu family property? b) Whether the suit is within limitation and the courts below have gravely erred by holding that the suit is barred by limitation? c) Whether the alleged will dated 21.7.1975 propounded by Surjit Singh is a valid and genuine document in the eyes of law? d) Whether the findings of the courts below are hit by the Principles of Hindu law as well as reported judgments? As regards question No. (a) the learned Lower Appellate Court has found after consideration of the entire evidence that the HUF had been broken up. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards question No. (b) this question is also a pure question of fact. As far as the age of the appellant is concerned, learned counsel has t not been able to persuade me that the said finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Question No. ( c ) is also a pure question of fact regarding which also learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the same has been answered without there being any evidence thereon or by such a perverse misreading of the evidence that it is liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once questions no. (a, (b), and ( c ) are held against the appellant, question No.(d) does not arise. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the RSA No. 1640 of 2004 4 appellant, both these appeals as well as the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected RSA No.1641 of 2004. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 05, 2010 sunita