-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 31, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. Ramesh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Jeet Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs- -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. respondents for a declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the suit properties detailed in the plaint left by Roop Chand (plaintiffs' father), adopted son of Phool Singh, were ancestral, the parties being governed by Hindu Law and, in the alternative, governed by Customary Law and that the decree dated 1.10.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.564 of 1983 (Ram Phal Singh etc. Vs. Roop Chand) obtained by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are sons of Zile (since deceased) son of Roop Chand is collusive, illegal and void and further that the lease deed dated 27.12.1979 executed in favour of defendant No.9 is false and fabricated and that the plaintiffs are thus entitled to be declared as owners in the joint possession of 4/5th share in the properties left by Roop Chand and that the defendants are liable to be restrained from interfering in the joint possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties was decreed. I have heard Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. The only question involved in this case is as to whether the property at the hands of Roop Chand (plaintiffs' father), adopted son of Phool Singh, was ancestral and, the parties being governed by custom, would devolve upon all his heirs in accordance with Hindu Succession Act,1956, or not. The trial Court held that the property at the hands of Roop Chand was not ancestral as the plaintiffs failed to produce on record copy of mutation finding a mention in the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. jamabandi for the year 1929-30. However, the copy of mutation No.244 was taken on record by the lower appellate Court by way of additional evidence. A perusal of mutation No.244 clearly shows that the suit property had devolved upon Mam Chand and Roop Chand from Phool Singh through inheritance in equal shares. The oral evidence led by the parties also shows that the suit property was ancestral. Ram Phal, defendant, while deposing as D.W.1 admitted that Roop Chand and his ancestors were agriculturalists and their source of income was agriculture and that in the matters of alienation and succession the parties are governed by customary law. Ramesh defendant (D.W.2) made a similar statement. Similar statements were made by Dharam Singh (D.W.4) and defendant Chhotu Ram. The lower appellate Court, in view of the revenue record and the evidence led by the defendants themselves, held that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Roop Chand qua plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 and 2. No fault can be found with this finding of the lower appellate Court, particularly when there is no evidence on record to show that any part of the suit property was self acquired property of Roop Chand. In case it is assumed that some part of the property had been purchased by Roop Chand himself, the same having been purchased from the income of the ancestral property, it became ancestral in his hands qua his heirs. There is no dispute that the parties are Jats by caste and there livelihood depends purely on agriculture. The -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. evidence produced on record proves that in matters of succession and alienation, they are governed by custom as prevalent in Haryana. As such, ancestral property could not be alienated by holder of property in any manner except for consideration and legal necessity. Lease deed dated 27.12.1979 in respect of land measuring 6 Kanals and 10 Marlas, which was ancestral property at the hands of Roop Chand, was executed by Roop Chand in favour of defendant No.9 Chhotu for 99 years for just a petty sum of Rs.50/- per annum. There was no legal necessity for Roop Chand to do so. As such, the plaintiffs are not bound by this lease deed in favour of defendant Chhotu Ram. Similarly, the decree dated 1.10.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.564 of 1983 (Ram Phal Singh etc. Vs. Roop Chand), in respect of the ancestral property at the hands of Roop Chand, which had been obtained by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are sons of Zile (since deceased) son of Roop Chand was the result of fraud. In these circumstances, it has been rightly held by the lower appellate Court that the decree dated 1.10.1983 in Civil Suit No.564 of 1983 and lease deed dated 27.12.1979 in favour of defendant No.9 Chhotu Ram are not valid and not binding upon the plaintiffs and as the parties are governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession, the property shall be deemed to have been reverted back to Roop Chand and on his death to have devolved upon all his heirs in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. I do not see any ground to differ from these findings of the lower appellate Court. -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1992. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 31, 2011. JUDGE ak