IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.272 of 1982 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 Gian Singh and others .... Appellants vs. Joginder Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the appellants. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 16.08.1979 and 19.01.1982 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants respectively. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of 5/12 share of the suit land by alleging that before his death on 10.03.1978, Rala son of Hari Chand, the plaintiff's father executed a gift deed in favour of another son Gian Singh. The gift deed was in civil suit No.156 of 1959. The suit was decreed on 20th April, 1970 by holding that the gift deed was illegal as it was against reversionary rights of the plaintiff. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 4th December, 1970. It was, therefore, prayed that as Rala had passed away, the suit for possession be decreed in accordance with law. The appellant Gian Singh filed a written statement admitting relationship, the gift deed executed by Rala and the fact that the gift deed had been set aside. It was, however, maintained that as he was in RSA No.272 of 1982 -2- possession of the property as a coparcener, the suit could not be decreed. After considering the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the property in suit including the property gifted by Ralla defendant No.1 was coparcenary property of plaintiff Ralla deceased and the defendants? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff and defendants and Ralla deceased constituted joint Hindu family? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property in his own right as coparcener at the time of death of Ralla? OPP. 4. Whether defendant No.1 remained in possession of the property, in dispute with the consent of the plaintiff. If so to what effect? OPD. 5. Whether defendant No.1 has made construction of the house in dispute? If so to what extent and to what effect? OPD. 6. Whether the house in dispute is the exclusive ownership of defendant No.1? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 8. Relief. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit for joint possession of 5/12 share. An appeal filed before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur was dismissed on 19.01.1982. Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that the present appeal which was admitted to await the outcome of a reference made to Full Bench of this Court would have to be dismissed in view of the Full RSA No.272 of 1982 -3- Bench judgment in Mihan and another vs. Inder and Another. As the substantial question of law in the present appeal namely the nature and extent of operation of customary law vis-a-vis Hindu Law and the Hindu Succession Act has been answered against the appellants. As the decree passed in favour of the respondent holding that the gift deed would not affect the rights of the respondent has been upheld by the courts below and as the ratio of the Full Bench does not affect the operation of the earlier judgment and decree, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 12.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge