R.S.A. No. 426 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 426 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2011 Chhote Lal alias Chhotu …..Appellant Vs. Smt.Kaushalya Devi and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the applications the delay in filing and refilling of the appeal is condoned. Applications stands disposed of. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant for declaration that the sale deed executed by his father and grand-father in favour of defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated June 9, R.S.A. No. 426 of 2011 (O&M) [2] 1987 was illegal and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff being coparcenary joint Hindu family property. Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has contended that the plaintiff was born in the year 1980 and he became major in the year 1998. He filed a suit in January 2001, challenging the sale deed. The main contention of counsel for the plaintiff- appellant is that under issue No.1, the trial Court has given a finding that the property sold to defendant no.1 by defendants No. 2 and 3 was a coparcenary property. In view of the said finding which has become final having not been challenged by any of the defendants, the Court should have set aside the sale deed holding that it was without legal necessity. He has urged that the father of plaintiff- appellant, namely, Sant Lal was having loose moral character and he had alongwith his mother wrongly sold the property belonging to joint Hindu Coparcenary property. I have heard counsel for the appellant. The finding of the trial Court on issue No.1 regarding the house in dispute being a coparcenary property of Hindu Undivided family of plaintiff- appellant and defendant- respondents No.2 and 3, though has not been challenged by anyone before the lower Appellate Court but no reasoning seems to have been given by the Courts below to arrive at a conclusion that the property sold by defendants No.2 and 3 long time back i.e. on June 9,. 1987 was a joint Hindu family coparcenary property. No evidence seems to have been produced by the plaintiff to establish as to how the property had come in the hands of Ami Lal, the grand-father or whether the property was purchased from the funds R.S.A. No. 426 of 2011 (O&M) [3] which constituted the nucleus. Even if it is presumed that a finding of fact has been arrived at by the trial Court about the nature of the property being joint Hindu coparcenary property, there is simultaneously finding arrived at by the trial Court that the defendant- respondent No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of the property without knowledge of the property being a joint Hindu Family coparcenary property. The civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant 14 years after the execution of the sale deed. The lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation. The evasive approach of defendants No.2 and 3 in not contesting the case has been held to be a proof of collusion of the plaintiff with defendants No.2 and 3. The lower Appellate Court in para 17 of the judgment has specifically observed that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the plea that property was purchased from joint Hindu family funds or that it was maintained by Karta of HUF. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy this Court has to what evidence had been produced on the record by the plaintiff to establish that the property was joint Hindu family coparcenary property in the hands of the sellers. No ground is made out for interference in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. Dismissed. January 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE