IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 878 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11. 2008 Sujit Singh ...... Appellant Versus Jagir Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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.A.L.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.N. Moudgil, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgments and decree of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that the property left behind by his father Ganda Singh was ancestral coparcenary property and that,therefore, the mutation of inheritance passed on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act wherein all the legal representatives were given equal shares, was illegal. Admittedly there are two parcels of property, one at village Manana and the second at village Hussainpur. Both the Courts have found that as regards the property at village Manana the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to link up the present ownership of 5 kanals with the property RSA No. 878 of 2008 (O&M) -2- which was allegedly inherited by Ganga Singh from his forefathers. With regard to property at village Hussainpur both the Courts have found that Ganda Singh was declared owner of that property under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sat Pal Singh and others v. Smt. Harminder Kaur and others , 1992 PLJ 164 wherein this Court held as follows:- “This Court in Faqiria and others v. Rajo and another, 1956 PLR 194, has held that when the occupancy tenant becomes owner by virtue of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act (VIII of 1953), the land becomes self acquired property and cannot be treated as ancestral land. This was reiterated by this Court in Karmi and others v. Bachna and others, 1959 PLR 313 and Naranjan Singh v. Parsa Singh, 1971 Current Law Journal 195. I find myself with respect in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. That being the position, I hold that the land in the possession of the occupancy tenant over which he acquired full proprietary rights by operation of law, became self acquired property in his hand and so I find no merit in the submission that the land in question was not the self acquired property of Deva Singh deceased.” To counter this learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh and others v. Gamdoor Singh, 1997(1) Apex Court Journal 290 wherein it RSA No. 878 of 2008 (O&M) -3- has been held that even self acquired property can also be put into the common pool. The proposition of law put forward in this judgment is unexceptionable. However, in my opinion this plea was never raised in the Courts below and is not such a plea which can be raised and decided at the stage of second appeal. Consequently I hold that the questions of law proposed do not arise in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 21, 2008 sunita