IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM Nos. 3125-C & 3126-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2009 Date of decision: 6-3-2009 Puran Singh … Appellant versus Gura Singh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. A.P.Jagga, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM Nos. 3125-C and 3126-C of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 20 days in filing and 178 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. RSA No. 1084 of 2009: Appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who has been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by him. Plaintiff in the suit pleaded that the suit property is the Joint Hindu Family Property of the parties, having respondent No.1, Gura Singh @ Gurdit Singh as Karta. The said land had been inherited by him from his great grand-father Ishar Singh. Defendants 2 and 3, Parveen Singh and Prabhjot Singh respectively, were the grand-sons of said Gura Singh @ Gurdit Singh. Gura Singh @ Gurdit Singh in order to deprive the plaintiff of his legal right and interest in Joint Hindu Family Property as co-parcener, executed sale-deed dated 6.8.1999 and mortgage-deed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 without any legal necessity and therefore, the same could not bind the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. The defendants further threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him forcibly from the suit land. The defendants were further requested many times to cancel the sale-deed but to no avail. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land is a co-parcenary joint Hindu Family property and he is a coparcener in respect thereof having equal share with other coparceners, and R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2009 -2- that sale-deed dated 6.8.1999 in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 13 marlas and mortgage in respect of land measuring 5 kanals out of the joint property in favour of defendant No.4 were illegal and without legal necessity, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. Upon notice of the suit, defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement wherein it was admitted that defendants 2 and 3 were the grand- sons of defendant No.1 Gura Singh @ Gurdit Singh; however, they denied that the character of the suit property as coparcenary joint hindu family property, besides denying the other averments in the plaint. Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2001. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court, an application under Order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was also preferred by the plaintiff seeking to produce pedigree-table in order to show that the suit property was coparcenary joint hindu family proper but the same was rejected by the first appellate Court holding that the proof of pedigree-table in absence of any evidence to show character of the suit property as coparcenary joint hindu family property, was inconsequential. The first appellate Court then vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2008 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property was the Joint Hindu Family Property of the parties and therefore, sale-deed dated 6.8.1999 so executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 could not be cancelled. The Courts below have observed that the only evidence brought by the plaintiff in support of his plea is his self-serving solitary statement as PW-1 in which he has stated that the suit property was ancestral and he was one of the co-sharers and that his father Gura Singh @ Gurdit Singh(respondent No.1) had sold the property but in cross-examination, he has admitted that Ishar Singh had died before he(plaintiff) attained the age of discretion and even before his birth R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2009 -3- and that at the time of death of his grand-father,Ishar Singh, his father was only 9/10 years old and therefore, in such situation, he cannot be expected to know as to from where the property was acquired by his grand-father or father. Moreover, the plaintiff also failed to place on record any copy of Jamabandi or Khasra Girdawari to prove his possession over the suit property; whereas on the contrary, the defendants produced sufficient evidence in the shape of sale-deed Exhibit D-1 and copy of Jamabandi, Exhibit D-2, showing that possession of the suit property had been delivered to defendants 2 to 4 whereafter mutation in their favour was also sanctioned which the plaintiff never challenged. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) March 6, 2009 JUDGE JS