-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2966 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 14, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2966 of 2009 (O&M). Ganga Parsad ... Appellant VERSUS Devi Lal and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Ganga Parsad (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2966 of 2009 (O&M). have gone through the records of the case. Defendants-respondents are minors and contested the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant through their natural guardian and father Ved Ram. Plaintiff-appellant Ganga Parsad and Ved Ram, father of the defendants-respondents, are real brothers. Shri Nathi, father of the plaintiff-appellant and grand-father of the defendants-respondents had suffered a decree with regard to the suit land in favour of the defendants-respondents in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Palwal, on 26.8.1994. On the basis of this decree, a mutation of change of ownership in respect of the suit land had also been entered and sanctioned at No.2743 on 31.12.1994. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that the said decree and the mutation were illegal, null and void and that the suit land was ancestral land of the plaintiff in the hands of Shri Nathi, father of the plaintiff and grand-father of the defendants. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Firstly, the instant suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2966 of 2009 (O&M). three years. The plaintiff had challenged the decree dated 26.8.1994 in the instant suit which was filed on 22.11.1997. Secondly, while deposing as P.W.2, the plaintiff admitted that his father had 24 acres of land out of which 14 acres of land had been transferred by him (father) in favour of the plaintiff and his (plaintiff's) brother Yed Ram i.e 7 acres each by suffering a civil Court decree in their favour. The remaining 10 acres of land had been transferred by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his grand-sons i.e defendants-respondents, sons of Ved Ram, brother of the plaintiff, by suffering a decree in the Civil Court, which has been impugned by the plaintiff in this suit. After giving 7 acres land each to the plaintiff and his brother Yed Ram, as per the settlement between them, Shri Nathi, father of the plaintiff and Ved Ram, who was absolute owner of the remaining property, was competent to transfer the remaining land in favour of his grand- sons. Undisputedly, the grand sons have birth right in the properties possessed by their grand-father. The defendants being grand sons had still pre-existing rights in the properties possessed by their grand-father. Shri Nathi, as noticed above, had separated the share of the plaintiff, and it was only thereafter that he transferred the remaining land in favour of his grand sons i.e the defendants. Shri Nathi had transferred 7 acres of land in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment (Exhibit D.6) and decree (Exhibit D.7). The plaintiff had no interest in the property at the hands of his father Shri Nathi after the judgment and decree (Exhibits D.6 and D.7, respectively). It was a later settlement between -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2966 of 2009 (O&M). the grandfather and the grandsons that the grandfather transferred the suit property in favour of the grand sons i.e defendants by way of judgment (Exhibit P.2) and decree (Exhibit P.3). Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 14, 2011. JUDGE ak