RSA No.2471 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2471 of 2007 Date of Decision: 5.8.2009 Satnam Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Amarjit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The legal representative of defendant No.1 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby sale of the land measuring 16 kanals on 10.12.1998 by defendant No.2- Hardial Singh, father of defendant No.1 was found to be void. The plaintiff, another son of Hardial Singh, has filed the present suit for possession alleging therein that Hardial Singh was owner and in possession of 150 kanals 8 marlas to the extent of ½ share of the land inherited by him from his forefathers. The suit land was joint Hindu family property and the plaintiff was in possession and owner of the same to the extent of his share by birth. Defendant No.2 has no right to alienate the ancestral property, but defendant No.2 alienated the suit property in favour RSA No.2471 of 2007 (2) of defendant No.1, his another son, without any legal necessity on 10.12.1998 for a consideration of Rs.3,20,000. The said alienation was said to be void and consequently, the plaintiff claimed possession of the same. The defendants denied the locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. It was alleged that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the suit land is an ancestral property. Such finding has been returned on the basis of statement of PW1-Amarjit Singh (plaintiff) and documents Exhibits P.1 to P.24. Such documents prove that the property was ancestral one owned by the forefathers of the parties, devolving upon Mal Singh, thereafter on Gian Singh and then upon Hardial Singh. In view of the said finding, it was found that the sale by Hardial Singh in favour of his son Charanjit Singh, was not for legal necessity. Such finding has been returned by correct appreciation of law and facts applicable. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 5.8.2009 ds