IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.842 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.3.2009 Jeet Ram alias Jot Ram. ....... Appellant through Shri Sushil Jain,Advocate. Versus Chand Kaur and others. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.2535-C of 2008 The application is allowed and 12 days' delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.842 of 2008 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 24.3.2006 and 31.10.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Sonipat (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff- R.S.A.No.842 of 2008 -2- .... respondent no.1 was decreed and the appeal of the defendant no.1-appellant was dismissed. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction by pleading that she is co-owner and in possession of 1/11th share of the land measuring 107 kanals 10 marlas, which was fully described and detailed in the plaint. The appellant and proforma respondents were impleaded as defendants therein. It was averred that the suit land was owned and possessed by one Bhim Singh son of Ram Kalan, the husband of respondent no.1 and father of the appellant, proforma respondent no.2, father-in-law of proforma respondent no.3, grand-father of proforma respondent nos. 4 & 5 and father of proforma respondent nos. 6 to 12. He expired on 26.12.1975and after his death, all his legal heirs had inherited his estate in equal shares and respondent no.1 had come in possession of 1/11th share thereof. It was alleged that the appellant and proforma respondents had now become dishonest and were threatening to alienate the share of respondent no.1 forcing her to file the suit. It was stated that a mutation qua the suit land had been wrongly got entered by the appellant and proforma respondents in collusion with the revenue officials and the same was not binding on the rights of respondent no.1. Proforma respondent nos. 3 and 6 to 9 filed their written statement admitting the claim of respondent no.1 and stated that they had no objection if the suit was decreed. In their written statement the appellant and other proforma respondents contested the suit and pleaded that they were co-owners and in R.S.A.No.842 of 2008 -3- .... possession of the suit land and the mutation had rightly been sanctioned in their names as respondent no.1 had voluntarily relinquished her right in their favour. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of 1/11 share and entitled to decree to the same effect?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim relief of injunction against the defendants as claimed?OPD 3. Whether present suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the suit?OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has not come in the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD 7. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that respondent no.1 had been successful in establishing her claim and consequently, decreed her suit. In appeal, the First Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. R.S.A.No.842 of 2008 -4- .... Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. I have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. In my opinion, the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The whole case of the appellant rests on the premise that there was a relinquishment of her right by respondent no.1 in the suit land in his favour and other proforma respondents. No such evidence was adduced from where it could be inferred that respondent no.1 had relinquished her right in favour of any of the persons impleaded as defendants in the suit. The Courts below have also noticed that respondent no.1 was not present before the Tehsildar at the time when the mutation was changed even though the appellant had stated so. DW1-Smt.Baljeet Kaur and DW3- Kishna admitted that respondentno.1 was not present. Even the testimony of the appellant himself while appearing as DW2 reveals that although he had stated that respondent no.1 was present, but he admitted that the Tehsildar did not obtain her thumb impression/ signatures. In this view of the matter, when the relinquishment deed has not seen the light of the day and there is no other evidence to show that there was any relinquishment of her right in favour of the appellant or any of the proforma respondents in any form or even to suggest that respondent no.1 was present at the time of change of the mutation, then in these circumstances, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any R.S.A.No.842 of 2008 -5- .... interference in the Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal, which is dismissed. March 27,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge