Regular Second Appeal No. 3973 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3973 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.9.2011 *** Ajay Singh & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Ranbir Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit seeking protection of his ownership and possession upon the suit property from the hands of appellant and others. Some of the defendants did not contest the suit. However, the suit was mainly contested by the appellant Ajay Singh. The learned trial Court held the plaintiff to be owner and in possession of the suit property and accordingly restrained the defendants from interfering in his possession, except in due course of law. The learned appellate Court affirmed the findings returned by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the instant regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant laying challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Heard. The appellants are none else but the sons of plaintiff-respondent No.1. They claimed the ownership of the suit property on the ground that being ancestral property, they have a legal right in the same. However, it emerges out from the records that they failed to prove the ancestral nature of the suit property. While the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the Regular Second Appeal No. 3973 of 2011 2 plaintiff proves his ownership and possession over the same. Such findings are discernible from perusal of para No.14 and its sub-paras of the judgment returned by the learned appellate Court and the same reads as under:- “14. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions so made by both the sides I find no merit in this appeal for the reasons to follow: (i) Undisputedly appellants pleading themselves to be the sons of respondent-plaintiff have claimed that the suit property in his hands was coparcenary property and thus they have right in it since their birth. However, they have miserably failed to prove the ancestral character of the suit land by proving any pedigree-table of their four degrees or any revenue record showing that the suit property in the hands of respondent-plaintiff had devolve upon him from his grand-father. Contrary to it order dated 9.8.2006 Ex.P1 shows that the suit land had fallen to the share of respondent-plaintiff in partition legally done upon his application by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Jind and mutation thereof No. 2179 dated 14.12.2007 Ex.P2. Our own Hon'ble High Court in Mohinder Kaur Vs. Pargat Singh & others, 2010(3) RCR(Civil) 491 and Harnek Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh, 2002(1) CCC 59 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhanwar Singh Vs. Puran & others, 2008(1) HRR 360 while dealing the similar issue have held that the coparcenary property after partition by losing its character of joint Hindu family property becomes self acquired property. The appellants-defendant in support of their assertions only produced copies of ration cards Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 proving themselves to be the sons of respondent-plaintiff. The appellant-defendants have not produced any revenue record or document of title showing the ancestral character of the suit land. Hence, the suit land Regular Second Appeal No. 3973 of 2011 3 by any stretch of imagination cannot be treated as a coparcenary property amongst the parties to the suit. I am fortified my views by Gulab Singh Vs. Mam Chand & others, 2009(2) RCR(Civil) 28(P&H), Makhan Singh (D) by LRs Vs. Kulwant Singh, 2007(2) CCC 471(SC) and Mst. Sham Kaur Vs. Hari Singh and others, AIR 1973(P&H) 71. (ii) It is evident from the record that due to vast temperamental differences respondent-plaintiff could not pull on his life with his wife Neelam defendant No.7 and resultantly sought divorce from her vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009 Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Hence it seems that now the appellants under the guidance and undue influence of their divorcee mother Neelam to grab the suit land illegally and forcibly have initiated the present litigation just to harass him. The facts and circumstances of 2009(4) RCR(Civil) 820(P&H)(supra) are not identical to the facts of present case and, therefore, no benefit whatsoever of it can be given to the appellants- defendant because “A” who had inherited ancestral property from his father had three sons. However he suffered consent decree in favour of his brother in respect of his entire inherited property. In this circumstances it was held that consent decree was not valid because he could only transfer his 1/4th share in the land and not the entire share whereas there are no such circumstances in the instant case. Similarly no benefit whatsoever can be given to the appellants-defendant of 2008(4) CCC 312(SC)(supra) because as discussed above they have miserably failed to prove the ancestral character of the suit land. Perusal of revenue record shows that the respondent-plaintiff was owner in possession of only 51 kanals of land i.e. around 6 acres. This fact is also not disputed by the appellants- Regular Second Appeal No. 3973 of 2011 4 defendant. Hence, averments of appellants-defendant in para No.2 of their written statement that respondent- plaintiff wanted to dispossess them from the suit land is patently illegal because they have miserably failed to prove their possession on any portion of it. Even otherwise the present appeal is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties because all the parties before the learned lower Court have not been impleaded in this appeal as co-appellants or respondents or the proforma respondents. Hence from this angle also appeal is liable to be dismissed. (iii) More so partition proceedings have never been challenged by appellants or any of the parties to it and thus the order dated 9.8.2006 Ex.P1 has also attained finality.” There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. Hence, finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 30,2011 Jiten