Regular Second Appeal No. 875 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 875 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2009 *** Mukesh .. Appellant VS. Narain Dass & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff- appellant has no right to question the legality of judgment and decree dated 27.4.1998 in favour of defendants and further to get the revenue entries incorporated pursuant to the said judgment, corrected in his favour and to restrain the defendants from alienating the land in question. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The plaintiff claimed that he and defendants were having common ancestors and since the land in question is ancestral at the hands of Gurditta, his grand-father, thus, the latter was having no right to alienate the same in favour of the defendants by virtue of the said judgment and decree, excluding the plaintiff. But it emerges out from the record that neither the plaintiff produced any pedigree table nor led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that his father Takan Dass was the son of Gurditta Ram. Even in the revenue record, so produced by the plaintiff, it was nowhere mentioned that Takan Dass, the father of the plaintiff was son of Gurditta Regular Second Appeal No. 875 of 2009 2 Ram whereas in the pedigree table Ex.DW2/B produced by the defendants reveals Narain Dass as the only son of Gurditta. Thus, both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff who is stranger to the suit property has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the instant suit, which is otherwise not maintainable. Therefore, there is no room to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 25,2009 Jiten