IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2812 of 1985 Date of decision:- 15.11.2011 Jee Sukh ...Appellant Versus Prithvi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- None for the appellant Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. RITU BAHRI J. This regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 06.06.1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa and judgment and decree dated 16.09.1983 passed by HCS, Sub Judge, Ist Class Sirsa. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration that the decree dated 07.10.1980 passed in Civil Suit No.799 of 1980 is against law and facts and is not binding against the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the eldest son of Chimana Ram-defendant No. 7 (for short 'defendant No. 7') and is real brother of Mani Ram, Manphool and Om Prakash. The plaintiff, his brothers and defendant No. 7 constitute a Joint Hindu family and Chimana Ram is the karta of the family. The land in suit was purchased by defendant No. 7 for the sale proceeds of the land situated at village Rajpura in the year 1955-56. The land in Rajpura was ancestral in the hands of defendant No. 7 qua the plaintiff and his brothers. After purchasing the land in suit from the sale proceeds of ancestral land situated at village Rajpura, it became the ancestral in the hands of defendant No. 7. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share from therein. By way of consent decree dated 07.10.1980, defendant No. 7 transferred the suit land in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 who are sons of Mani Ram, Manphool and Om Prakash. They have admitted that the plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 7 and brothers of Mani Ram etc. but they have alleged that the suit land is not ancestral property and the same is self-acquired property of defendant No. 7. Plaintiff had separated himself from defendant No. 7 about 30 years back. It was further alleged that defendant No. 7 was at liberty to dispose of his property to anybody and that the statement given by defendant No. 7 in the Court is not binding upon the defendants. Thereafter, trial Court famed following issues:- “1. Whether the impugned decree dated 17.9.1980passed by Sub Judge Ist Class Sirsa in G.S. No. 799 of 1980 is null and void and liable to set aside as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit land is self-acquired properly of Chimana Ram If so its effect? OPD. 3. Relief”. In order to prove that that the land situated at village Rajpura was ancestral the plaintiff had examined himself as PW-2 and stated that the land at village Rajpura was ancesstral in the hands of defendant No. 7 who sold the same about 24/25 years back. He further deposed that defendant No. 7 had purchased the suit land with the sale-proceeds of the land of Rajpura. In order to prove his contention, he also examined one Girdhari as PW-3 who is close relation of the plaintiff and had stated that the properly in dispute was sold by him to defendant No. 7. He further stated that defendant No. 7 had purchased the suit land with the sale-proceeds of land of village Rajpura which was ancestral in the hand of Chimana Ram. He also examined one Atma Ram as PW-4 who has also corroborated the plea of the plaintiff on the point. The plaintiff also placed on the record the copy of statement Ex.P.3 of defendant No. 7 in Civil Suit No. 486 of 1977 decided on 10.12.1979 to prove that the suit land was ancestral in his hands. After going through the statement made by defendant No. 7, the trial Court came to a finding that defendant No. 7 did not state anywhere that he suit land was ancestral in his hands. No revenue record was produced to prove that the land in Rajpura was inherited by defendant No. 7 from his father. As per the statement given by Girdhari (PW3), defendant No. 7 had purchased the suit land for ` 8,000/- from him. It was also admitted case of the parties that the land of village Rajpura was sold only for ` 4,000/-. The oral evidence of plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Chimana Ram. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that since the suit property was self acquired property of defendant No. 7, the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the decree in dispute. On appeal, Additional District Judge Sirsa has affirmed the finding given by the trial Court that the suit land was not ancestral in the hands of defendant No. 7. The appellate Court while examining the statement made by defendant No. 7 has held that in his cross examination, he had stated that he had sold some land in Rajpura in the year 1955-56 but did not purchase the suit land with the sale proceeds of the same. He testified that he sold that land of village Rajpura to one Manphool and Ram Sarup as he required the money in question for some marriage. Chimana Ram has been impleaded as defendant No. 7 but was not produced and confronted by the plaintiff. The finding given by the trial court that the suit property was the self acquired property of defendant No. 7 and the consent decree dated 07.10.1980 could not be set aside on the ground that it was ancestral. The plea taken by the plaintiff that the consent decree was due to undue influence, has been rejected by the Appelate Court. The Appellate Court also declined to go into the validity of the consent decree dated 07.10.1980. After going through the entire file and facts of the present case, I am of the view that the plaintiff has miserably failed to proved that the suit land was ancestral property of defendant No. 7 and he could not suffer a consent decree in favour of the defendants. This finding of fact has been recorded by taking into account the evidence led by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this appeal. Accordingly, R.S.A is dismissed. 15.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE