RSA No.4903 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4903 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011 Sukhdev Singh alias Dupahara .....Appellants v. Natha Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate for the appellants. ...... Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14284-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 71 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.14285-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 12 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.4903 of 2011 Present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide which appeal filed by respondents-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 21.2.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was dismissed, was accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone RSA No.4903 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that Sarwan Singh was owner of the property in dispute. Present respondents-plaintiffs and respondent- defendant no.1 are natural legal heirs of Sarwan Singh. Hence, as per natural succession they get 1/5th share each in the property left by Sarwan Singh. Present appellant-defendant no.2 is claiming right in the entire property on the basis of agreement to sell executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in his favour. However, respondent-defendant no.1 was having only 1/5th share in the entire property left by his deceased father Sarwan Singh. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, that he could not sell rights in the property in dispute more than his share and on that basis the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court has been modified by learned first appellate Court to the extent that respondent-defendant no.1 was having no right to alienate more than his 1/5th share in the property in dispute and specific portion of the property in dispute without partition. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that he has already filed a suit for specific performance of agreement executed in his favour by respondent-defendant no.1. However, even if any such suit has been filed, the same is not going to effect the rights in the property in dispute of the present respondents-plaintiffs, who alongwith respondent no.1 have inherited the property left by Sarwan Singh-deceased. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the RSA No.4903 of 2011(O&M) -3- impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 14.12.2011 ( Ram Chand Gupta ) meenu Judge