IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3386 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 Devi Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Dharma and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs-Devi Singh and others filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge(Senior Divn.)Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2009. Hence, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 1 to 2 of its judgment read as under:- "Briefly stated, case of plaintiffs is to the following effect: Suit land as detailed in the plaint was owned by one Mussadi Panthi, plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 were the sons of said Mussadi whereas, defendants No.4 and 5 were the daughters. Mussadi died in the year 1973. Mussadi relinquished his rights in suit land in favour of his sons prior to his death. Suit R.S.A. No.3386 of 2009(O&M) ..2.. land forms part of ancestral property of the family. Consequent upon death of Panthi, his share was inherited by plaintiffs No.2 to 7. Defendants No.4 and 5 have no right or title in the suit land. Defendant No.4 executed a gift deed dated 13.7.2004 in favour of defendant No.6 qua her share in the suit land. Plaintiffs alleged that this gift deed was procured by means of undue influence, fraud etc. Through present suit, plaintiffs sought decree of declaration that they alongwith defendants no.1 to 3 are owners in possession of suit land and impugned gift deed dated 13.7.2004 is illegal, result of undue pressure, fraud and not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3. Plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction restraining defendants no.4 to 6 from interfering with their possession over the suit land. 2. In written statement, defendants No.1,2 ,4 to 6 raised preliminary objections interalia pleading the non-maintainability of suit, bar of limitation etc. Contesting defendants denied that suit property was the ancestral property of the family. Contesting defendants asserted that they were owners in possession of suit land to the extent of their shares. Contesting defendants denied that the gift deed dated 13.07.2004 was obtained by means of any undue influence, fraud etc. Contesting defendants defending the impugned gift deed dated 13.7.2004 by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6 as being legal and valid. Contesting defendants also denied the other allegations made by the plaintiffs against them. Initially defendant No.3 appeared before the trial court but thereafter absented from the court. Accordingly R.S.A. No.3386 of 2009(O&M) ..3.. defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte by learned trial court. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiffs are owners of share claimed in the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether gift deed dated 13.7.2004 is illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP 3. If issues No.1 and 2 proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?OPP. 4. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether suit is time barred? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit?OPD. 7. Whether suit has not been property valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD. 8. Relief." After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff No.1, 2 to 7 in equal shares and defendants No.1 to 3 were owners of 1/5th share in each in the suit land and the gift deed dated 13.07.2004 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6 was challenged. The case of the plaintiff was that their father had partitioned the suit land in favour of his sons during his life time. However, the said partition was not reflected in the revenue record. After the death of Mussadi, the land was mutated in favour of his sons and daughters. Defendant No.4 is the daughter of R.S.A. No.3386 of 2009(O&M) ..4.. Mussadi and she executed a gift deed qua her share on 13.07.2004 in favour of defendant No.6 Parkash(her nephew). Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on cross-examination of defendant No.6 which reads as under(as reproduced in the grounds of appeal):- "When my aunts Bohti and Dharmo were married than my father and uncles were together with my grand father. It is correct that at that time, the land was joint. It is also correct that at the time of my grand father, he had given the land to his sons to cultivate separately. Himself said that it was given to my grand mother also. My grand mother name was Manbhari. She has also died nearly 18-20 years ago. After her death also, the mutation of land had taken place......" However, the plaintiffs-appellants cannot draw any benefit from the cross- examination of defendant No.6 as the partition of land alleged by the plaintiffs was never reflected in the revenue record after the death of Mussadi. Mutation qua inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal heirs i.e sons and daughters and the same was never challenged. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record by the parties have held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit property was ancestral property and the gift deed was a result of undue influence and fraud. Defendant No.4 had admitted the gift deed executed by her in favour of defendant No.6. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 27.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge