R. S. A. No. 1992 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1992 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 04, 2011 Rohit Chauhan .... Appellant Vs. Surinder Singh alias Surender and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged two sale deeds dated 19.05.2000 and release deed dated 28.05.2004 executed by plaintiff's father Gulab Singh – defendant no.2 (since deceased) in favour of Surinder Singh alias Surender – defendant no.1 (nephew of defendant no.2) regarding 104 kanals land in suit, on the ground that the suit land was coparcenary property in the hands of defendant no.2 and the impugned alienations are R. S. A. No. 1992 of 2011 2 without consideration and legal necessity. Out of the suit land, 08 kanals land was sold/transferred to defendants no.1 and 3 to 5. Defendant no.1 contested the suit and defended the impugned sale deeds and release deed. It was denied that the suit land was ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of Gulab Singh – defendant no.2. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendants no.3 to 5 also contested the suit. Proforma defendants no.6 and 7 are daughter and wife respectively of defendant no.2. They admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 Gulab Singh adopted the written statement of defendant no.1. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2010, decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendant no.1 has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed, necessitating the filing of the instant second appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It has come in documentary evidence that out of the suit land, Gulab Singh got about 72 kanals land by way of consent decree suffered by his father and 24 kanals by way of Will executed by his father, whereas the R. S. A. No. 1992 of 2011 3 remaining 08 kanals land was purchased by Gulab Singh himself along with his brothers. Consequently, it is manifest that the suit land has not devolved upon defendant no.2 Gulab Singh by natural inheritance from his father. In these circumstances, the lower appellate court has rightly held the suit land to be not ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of Gulab Singh – defendant no.2. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any provision of law or precedent to depict that the land got by way of consent decree or Will would be ancestral or coparcenary property. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellant contended that even in the release deed, Gulab Singh himself mentioned the suit land to be ancestral property. However, this recital in the release deed would not make the suit land to be ancestral or coparcenary property in his hands, when it is proved by documentary evidence to the contrary. In addition to it, the aforesaid recital about land being ancestral was made in the release deed to avail of the benefit of exemption from stamp duty. Release deed of ancestral property in favour of specified close relatives requires only nominal stamp duty of Rs.15/-, whereas release deed of non-ancestral property would require ad valorem stamp duty. So, the aforesaid recital in the release deed regarding ancestral nature of the suit land was made to only avail of the benefit of exemption from payment of stamp duty. It may be added that the suit, which was filed on 22.07.2004, is R. S. A. No. 1992 of 2011 4 also barred by limitation qua two sale deeds dated 19.05.2000 having been instituted more than three years after the execution of the said sale deeds. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Finding of the lower appellate court that the suit land is not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property is fully justified by the documentary evidence and admitted facts. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant any interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 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. May 04, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE