R.S.A No. 1656 of 1987 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1656 of 1987 Date of decision : September 10, 2009 Pitamber Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Nanak Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff challenging the sale deed dated 25.7.1970 made by his father in respect of land measuring 32 kanals 4 marla for Rs.20,000/-. It may be mentioned at the outset that a Full Bench of this Court in RSA No.528 of 1997, Mihan and another v. Inder and another, decided on 27.2.2008, held as follows :- R.S.A No. 1656 of 1987 ::2:: “ In Haryana the property in the hands of a successor may be held to be coparcenary property as well as ancestral property as known to customary law. It is well settled that the parties can fall back upon Hindu Law in case they fail to establish that the rule of decision is custom. Therefore, in Haryana both under Hindu Law and the Customary Law the alienation would be open to challenge. It is not easy to contemplate all those situations which on the facts of each case would emerge by application of Hindu Law in contra distinction to that of Customary Law with regard to alienation.” Thus, the primary question of law viz. the applicability of custom to the State of Haryana has been upheld. Apart from this, both the Courts below have found that the appellant has not been able to establish any recklessness or lack of legal necessity. These are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same so perverse as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 10, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1656 of 1987 ::3::