RSA No.2937 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2937 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.08.2010. Gursewak Singh .……Appellant Versus Bhola Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. K. K. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Gursewak Singh-defendant No.2 has filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Suit was filed by Bhola Singh respondent No.1 against Gurbachan Singh (since deceased and represented by proforma respondent Nos.2 to 5 as legal representatives) and against Gursewak Singh. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are sons of Gurbachan Singh. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No.1 was owner in possession to the extent of 1/6th share in 182 kanals 17 marlas land i.e 30 kanals 9 marlas land. Defendant No.1 transferred the ownership of the suit land to defendant No.2 vide registered deed dated 19.08.2002. The plaintiff has challenged the said alienation alleging that the suit land was ancestral Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1 qua plaintiff and defendant No.2 because defendant No.1 inherited the same RSA No.2937 of 2010 -2- from his father Harnam Singh. Accordingly the plaintiff sought declaration that plaintiff is co-sharer in the suit land being member of Hindu Coparcenary and the suit land being coparcenary property and the transfer deed dated 19.08.2002 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is against law and facts and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff as it was executed without consideration and necessity and the said deed is null and void. Permanent injunction was also claimed. Defendants in their written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and also admitted transfer of the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. It was also admitted that all three daughters of defendant No.1 stood married. Other plaint allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendants are living separately and they are separate in mess and in every other respect. The parties are not members of Joint Hindu Family. Suit property is not coparcenary property. Plaintiff has no right or share in the suit property. Impugned transfer deed is legal and valid as defendant No.1 had full right to execute the same. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and RSA No.2937 of 2010 -3- perused the case file. On the basis of documentary evidence and other evidence on record, both the Courts below have concurrently found that defendant No.1 Gurbachan Singh inherited the suit land from his father Harnam Singh and, therefore, the suit property, in the hands of Gurbachan Singh defendant No.1, was ancestral coparcenary property qua his own sons i.e plaintiff and defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that since plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that even father of defendant No.1 had inherited the suit land from his own father Narain Singh, the suit land cannot be said to be ancestral or coparcenary property because to assume such character, the suit property should have been inherited from great grandfather of the plaintiff and not only from grandfather of the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. Property inherited from any ancestor within three degrees would become ancestral property in the hands of the holder qua his own sons. In the instant case, plaintiff has pleaded and proved that defendant No.1 inherited the suit land from his own father. Consequently, plaintiff and defendant No.2, who are sons of defendant No.1, became coparceners with him and the suit property became coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1 qua plaintiff and defendant No.2. There is no infirmity in the finding of the courts below in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that defendant No.2 was recorded to be transfree of the suit land in jamabandi for the year 1997-98. However, it is beyond RSA No.2937 of 2010 -4- comprehension as to how this circumstance would effect the nature of transfer. On the other hand, this plea was not even raised by the defendants in the written statement On the contrary, the defendants admitted that defendant No.1 had transferred the suit land to defendant No.2 vide registered transfer deed dated 19.08.2002, which has been challenged by the plaintiff. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the finding of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is fully justified by the evidence and supported by reasons recorded by the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 05.08.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE