R.S.A. No.604 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.604 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 1.4.2010 Baljinder Kaur & others .... Appellants VERSUS Smt. Karnail Kaur & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. S.S. Toor, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent No.6. MAHESH GROVER, J. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit property is ancestral one and being ancestral, the property could not have been alienated by suffering a collusive decree as has been done. A perusal of the impugned judgments, however, shows that no such fact is pleaded by the appellants. The pleadings are totally vague and therefore, the Courts below could not have looked into the evidence, if any, which was beyond the pleadings. No specific case was set up by the appellants to the effect that the property being ancestral could not be alienated. The appellants were not only required to plead this fact but also required to show as to how the property had devolved upon R.S.A. No.604 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Nasib Singh, their father. In the absence of these particulars, the plea of the appellants that the suit property is ancestral, cannot be appreciated. Thus, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Dismissed. Consequently, the application for stay is also dismissed . 1st April, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE