RSA No. 2280 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2280 of 2008 Date of decision: December 16,2008 Suraj Bhan and another ..Appellants. Versus Ankit and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. As per the averments made in the plaint, one Ram Kishan was the owner of the agricultural land in dispute. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are sons and daughters of Ram Kishan. Plaintiffs came to know that wife of defendant No.5 Ompatti in collusion with Ram Kishan fraudulently got a decree dated 15.2.2003 passed in respect of ½ share of Ram Kishan in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Ankit and Vikas alias Ravi in Civil suit No.42 of 2002 titled as Ankit and another Versus Ram Kishan. The said judgment and decree is illegal,null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 6 as the land in dispute is ancestral and the defendants Nos.2 and 3 are not members of the Joint Hindu Family. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 had no pre-existing right in the property in dispute. Thus, impugned decree dated 15.2.2003 requires compulsory registration and the same could not confer any right, title or interest upon defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and they threatened to alienate the same. Hence this suit. Defendant No.1 filed separate written statement denying the allegations. In the joint written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 5, it was submitted that the decree suffered by Ram Kishan is binding upon the parties as RSA No. 2280 of 2008 2 the same was passed rightly and legally. The plaintiffs filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and further reiterating the contents of the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.2.2003 can be declared illegal, null and void as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Relief. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After hearing the arguments, the trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that the decree in Civil Suit No.42 of 2002 dated 15.2.2003 titled as Ankit Versus Ram Kishan is illegal, null and void and the defendants were restrained from transferring the suit land in the garb of impugned decree. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2008 held that the decree dated 15.2.2003 does not require registration but the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of 4/5th share and is legal and valid only in respect of 1/5th share of Ram Kishan in the suit land. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court under issue No.1 were partly set aside and the appeal was partly accepted. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff- appellant Nos.1 and 2 stood decreed only to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2002 is illegal, null and void qua 4/5th share in the suit land and the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs to that extent but the same is valid and binding in respect of 1/5th share of Ram Kishan in the suit land. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were restrained from alienating more than 1/5th share in the suit land. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. RSA No. 2280 of 2008 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 15.2.2003 suffered by their father Ram Kishan only in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that the suit land is ancestral property and they have got right therein. The lower Appellate Court held that Ram Kishan being one of the coparceners on 1/5th share in the suit land which was ancestral property in his hand qua his sons and grand sons and he could bequeath his share only, i.e., to the extent of 1/5th share upon the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged family settlement. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to challenge this finding of the lower Appellate Court. In fact, it is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs themselves that they along with defendant No.1 Ram Kishan and defendant Nos.4 to 6 constituted Joint Hindu Family coparcenery and in fact, they are recognizing the fact that Ram Kishan had 1/5th share in the disputed property in dispute. Thus Ram Kishan was competent to suffer decree in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to that extent. No other point has been urged. Thus there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. December 16, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE