1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3566 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 *** Joginder Singh .. Appellant VS. Sujan Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.M. Ravi, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal who since been non- suited by the Courts below has preferred to approach this Court to lay challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book carefully. The plaintiff filed a suit and challenged the validity of gift-deed dated 15.2.1999 executed by defendant No.2, the widow of his uncle, who died issueless, by which she transferred her share in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1, the son of her brother and also the mutation No.272, with the averments that the suit property was ancestral in nature and defendant No.2, being widow and so the customs permits, can use the same as life estate owner but she had no right to transfer the same and he and his other brothers and sisters, being close reversioners are entitled to inherit the same. The stand of the defendants on the other hand was that defendant No.2 was the absolute owner of the suit property and she has 2 rightly gifted the same defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has no concern with the same. It is apparent that the plaintiff failed to prove the ancestral nature of the suit land in the hands of Katha Singh qua his heirs and also failed to properly plead the customs by which the plaintiff sought reversion of the suit land in his favour, irrespective of the fact that his other brothers and sister never questioned the legality of transfer made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Thus, the Courts below while relying upon the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act held that the widow after the death of her husband becomes full owner of the estates left out by her deceased husband and thus, defendant No.2 who stepped into the shoes of her husband, was well within her rights to transfer the suit land in favour of defendant No.2. With regard to the plea of the plaintiff of his being in possession of the suit land, it has been held that it is immaterial and important is right of possession. Moreover, it was brought on record that the suit filed for possession by defendant No.1 was decreed with regard to the property jointly held by him and Joginder Singh-plaintiff. I do not find any question of law which require determination by this Court, in the instant appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 23,2009 Jiten