Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 2003 (O & M IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 14 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 0031 (O & M Manbhawati and others ….Appellants Versus Chhote 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.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The instant suit was filed by plaintiff Mahabir (deceased) through his legal heirs i.e the appellants herein against the defendants- respondents for declaration, permanent injunction and joint possession in respect of the suit land, described in para No.1 of the plaint, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2000 to the following effect:- Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 2003 (O & M “ In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with costs. Plaintiff is declared owner and in joint possession over the suit property mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint, to the extent of 1/3rd share.” Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants-respondents went in appeal which was partly allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2002 to the following effect:- “ For the reasons recorded above, the findings of learned lower Court on issues Nos.1 to 3 are thus reversed and the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court are modified to the extent that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint (wrongly mentioned by the lower appellate Court as “mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint”) to the extent of his 1/6th share.” Now the legal heirs of plaintiff Mahabir (deceased) are before this Court by way of filing the instant appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 2003 (O & M After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.1 and going through the records of the case, this appeal deserves dismissal for the reasons to be given hereinafter. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Mahabir (since deceased), defendant-respondent No.1 Chhote Lal and defendant-respondent No.2 Lal Singh (since deceased) are brothers being the sons of Baldev. Baldev and his brother Bhairam have been recorded as joint owners in possession of the suit land in equal share in the revenue record. The suit land had, thus, been inherited by Baldev and his brother Bhairam in equal shares after the death of their father Govinda. After the death of Bhairam, Baldev had become owner of ½ share of Bhairam in the suit land as per mutation No.130 which shows that ½ share of Bhairam in the suit land was inherited by Baldev. By virtue of this mutation No.130, Baldeva had become owner of the whole of the suit land. Baldev had suffered a collusive decree in respect of the suit land in favour of his two sons i.e the respondents herein in Civil Suit No.512 decided on 28.9.1989. Under the circumstances, the only question involved in this appeal is as to whether the whole of the suit land can be termed as ancestral in the hands of Baldeva. As noticed above, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Mahabir (since deceased), defendant-respondent No.1 Chhote Lal and defendant-respondent No.2 Lal Singh (since deceased) are brothers being the sons of Baldev. It may be mentioned here that so far as ½ share in the suit land which was inherited by Baldev from his father is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the same Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 2003 (O & M will be his (Baldev’s) ancestral property; meaning thereby the appellants and the respondents herein have acquired interest therein by birth as per Para No.223 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla as contained in XII Joint Hindu Family Coparceners and Coparcenary Property - Mitakshara Law. At the same time, Para No.223 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla as contained in XII Joint Hindu Family Coparceners and Coparcenary Property - Mitakshara Law further provides that “ a person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors holds it, and must hold it, in coparcenary with his sons, son’s sons, and son’s son’s sons, but as regards other relations, he holds it, and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property. The result is that if a person inheriting property from another one of his three immediate paternal ancestors has no son, son’s son or son’s son’s son, the property is his absolute property and no relations of his are entitled to any interest in it in his life time.” Thus, the ½ share of Bhairam in the suit land, which was inherited by Baldev after the death of his brother Bhairam, was his (Baldev’s) absolute property, with which he could deal with in the manner he liked. However, Baldev could not alienate the share of the appellants in the suit land. In this view of the matter, Baldev was not competent to alienate the whole of the suit land including the share of the appellants in it by way of suffering a consent decree in Civil Suit No.512 decided on 28.9.1989 in favour of his two sons i.e the respondents herein. The lower appellate Court was, thus, justified in modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent quoted above. Regular Second Appeal No.4583 of 2003 (O & M Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: March 14, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE