1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4146 of 2008. Date of Decision: 16.1.2009 *** Khush Pal. .. Appellant VS. Laj Pat Rai & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal, the plaintiff- appellant has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 27.3.2008 and 21.10.2008 passed by learned trial court as well as first appellate court below. The case set up by the plaintiff is that after the death of his father Karam Chand he along with his brothers i.e. defendants No.1, 2 and Smt. Krishnawati, their mother, are entitled to inherit the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share each, since their another brother i.e. defendant No.3 Sham Lal relinquished his right in the suit property, but inadvertently in the succession certificate as well as in the revenue record the names of defendants No.1, 2 and Smt. Krishna Wanti were incorporated as owners to the extent of 1/3rd share each. However, after the death of Smt. Krishna Wanti, her share was succeeded by plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 in equal share i.e. 1/4th share each and as a consequence thereof the plaintiff sought correction in the revenue record and also the fact that the land sold by him and defendant No.3 to defendant No.4 to the extent of 1/24 share in the suit land measuring 140 kanal be treated as sale-deed in respet of land to the extent of 1/32 share after adding the 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the suit land devolved upon him after the death of his father Karam Chand. On the other hand the stand of the defendants No.1 and 2 was 2 that Smt. Krishna Wanti was earlier married to one Ram Parkash and out of this wedlock plaintiff and defendant No.3 were born. After the death of Ram Parkash, Smt. Krishna Wanti performed second marriage with Karam Chand and from that marriage defendants No.1 and 2 were born. Thus, being the first class heirs the suit land was rightly apportioned amongst defendants No.1, 2 and Smt. Krishna Wanti in equal shares while after the death of Krishna Wanti the suit property was succeeded by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 in 1/4th equal shares. The learned trial court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008 concluded that the plaintiff, who is proved to be born from the wedlock of Ram Parkash and Krishna Wanti is not entitled to get any share from the property of Karam Chand and the plaintiff is only entitled to get 1/4th share in the property left by deceased Krishna Wanti i.e. 1/12 share in the suit property and also set aside the sale-deed dated 24.12.1998 while directing the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the revenue record. The suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed to that extent. Dis-satisfied with the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal while defendants No.1 and 2 filed their cross-objections. The learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2008 disposed of the appeal and cross-objections and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. While doing so, the factors which prompted the learned appellate court below to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-appellant are firstly, the admission of the plaintiff of his being present at the time of marriage of his mother Krishna Wanti with Karam Chand, secondly the plaintiff and defendant No.3 executed a general power of attorney (Ex.D1) in favour of Ram Sarup showing themselves to be the son of Ram Parkash, thirdly, the mutation of inheritance Ex.D5 was sanctioned upon the death of Ram Parkash wherein plaintiff and defendant No.3 were shown as son of said Ram Parkash and fourthly it was not the case of the plaintiff that he was adopted son of Karam Chand. All these factors led the learned appellate court below to conclude that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 were the sons of Ram Parkash and as per Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, they have no preferential rights over and above defendants No.1, 2 and Krishna Wanti in the property left out by deceased Karam Chand being sons and wife 3 respectively. But after the death of Krishna Wanti, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 rightly inherited her share to the extent of 1/4 each, as per Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Even the learned first appellate court, in the absence of any evidence that the land, which had been admittedly sold by him and his brother defendant No.3, was more than the land they inherited upon the death of their mother Smt. Krishna Wanti, rightly concluded that the said sale-deed cannot be set aside and reversed the findings of the learned trial court in that regard. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court below are either illegal or perverse and need no interference. Interestingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit, which mistake has been rectified by the learned first appellate court by dismissing the suit by dint of the impugned judgment and decree. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 16,2009 Jiten