Regular Second Appeal No. 2961 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2961 of 2007 Date of decision : August 09, 2010 Jagir Singh ....Appellant versus Gurjit Kaur and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Swarn Sandhir, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3 and LRs of respondent no. 5 Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for LRs No. 1 to 3 of respondent no. 4 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff Jagir Singh since deceased (represented by legal representatives) having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are descendants of Sahib Singh who was great-grand-father of the plaintiff and grand-father of defendant no. 1. Sahib Singh had three sons i.e. Uttam Singh (grand-father of the plaintiff), Jagat Singh (father of defendant no. 1) and Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh died issueless leaving behind Dhan Kaur as widow who died later on. Regular Second Appeal No. 2961 of 2007 -2- Plaintiff's case is that Sahib Singh was owner of 73 kanals 9 marlas including suit land measuring 41 kanals and also of the suit plot. On his death, his three sons inherited 1/3rd share each therein. However, on the death of Bhagat Singh and his wife Dhan Kaur, his 1/3rd share came to other two branches and accordingly, plaintiff and defendant no. 1 became owner to the extent of half share each. However, revenue records wrongly depicted the plaintiff to be having 1/4th share in the suit land and defendant no. 1 to be having 3/4th share therein. Defendants alleged that the suit property was not ancestral. The plaintiff does not have half share therein. Defendant no. 1 is exclusive owner of the plot. The entries in the revenue record correctly depicted plaintiff to be having 1/4th share and defendant no. 1 to be having 3/4th share of the suit land. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2004 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The whole case of the plaintiff-appellant is based on the plea that Sahib Singh common ancestor of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was owner of the suit land. However, the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the said plea. The plaintiff himself did not step into witness box. On the other hand, wife and general attorney of the plaintiff appeared in the witness box Regular Second Appeal No. 2961 of 2007 -3- but she miserably failed to prove that the plaintiff has half share in the suit land. No jamabandi or other document has been placed on record to depict that Sahib Singh common ancestor of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was ever owner of the suit land. On the other hand, in jamabandi for the year 1998- 99, Dhan Kaur widow of Bhagat Singh and Jagat Singh were recorded to be owner of the suit land in equal shares. On death of Dhan Kaur her half share was inherited in equal shares i.e. 1/4th share each by plaintiff's father and by defendant no. 1. Thus, plaintiff became owner of 1/4th share and defendant became owner of 3/4th share as he had already half share and inherited 1/4th share from Dhan Kaur. Even inheritance mutation of Dhan Kaur was sanctioned accordingly in favour of plaintiff's father and father of defendant no. 1. It is, thus, apparent that plaintiff has only 1/4th share in the suit land as rightly depicted in the revenue record. There is no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the courts below to this effect. It appears that out of 73 kanals and odd marlas of land allegedly owned by common ancestor Sahib Singh, plaintiff's ancestor got his share separated in consolidation of holdings and accordingly, plaintiff was recorded exclusive owner of 32 kanals 1 marla land whereas the remaining 41 kanals land in suit went to the other two branches. Plaintiff's branch inherited half share in the half share of Bhagat Singh's branch and thus, plaintiff became owner of 1/4th share in the suit land measuring 41 kanals whereas defendant no. 1 became owner of 3/4th share in the suit land. Both the courts below have analyzed and appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is supported by evidence and cogent reasons. The plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No. 2961 of 2007 -4- miserably failed to prove his case. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 09, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'