RSA No. 3109 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3109 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Raj Pal ...Appellant Versus Karmbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM No. 8551-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CM No. 8552-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3109 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide which appeal filed by the present respondent-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone RSA No. 3109 of 2011 (O&M) 2 through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned courts below. Admitted facts are that present appellant-plaintiff is father of the respondent-defendants. He suffered a decree on 28.10.1986 in favour of his sons i.e. respondent-defendants, who were minor at that time, which is Annexure A-2. He had filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff -respondent. He also made statement before the court by admitting the claim of the plaintiff by engaging a counsel and thereafter, judgment and decree dated 28.10.1986 was passed against him and in favour of the plaintiffs. He challenged the said judgment and decree suffered by him by filing the suit in the year 2007 i.e. after more than 20 years of passing the judgment and decree. The decree is being challenged on the ground that the same is illegal, as respondent-defendants are having no right to restrain him from alienating the property in dispute being Karta of the Joint Hindu family as the property in dispute is the ancestral one. Suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed by learned trial court on the ground that respondent-defendants were having no right to restrain the plaintiff from alienating the property in dispute. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by respondent-defendants has been accepted by learned first appellate court on the ground that appellant -plaintiff can challenge the judgment and decree suffered by him on the ground of fraud only and that he has no right to challenge the same on the ground of alleged illegality. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned first appellate court has committed illegality in passing the RSA No. 3109 of 2011 (O&M) 3 impugned judgment as he being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family cannot be restrained from alienating the property in dispute for legal necessity. However, there is no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned first appellate court has rightly observed that appellant -plaintiff, who is a party to the decree passed against him, is having no right to challenge the same on the ground of alleged illegality. He can only challenge the same on the ground of fraud and however, he has failed to prove any alleged fraud committed upon him by the respondent- defendants, who were minors, at the time decree was suffered by the present appellant-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by learned first appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 29.7.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE