R.S.A. No. 217 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 217 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 17, 2011 Bhim and another …..Appellants Vs. Karan Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned the applications, the delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Applications stands disposed of. Suit of the plaintiff- appellants challenging the sale deed dated October 7, 1997 in favour of defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that the suit land was ancestral property qua the plaintiff- appellants in the hands of their father Ram Dass stands dismissed by the Courts below. The claim of the plaintiff- appellants had been that they have got a right in R.S.A. No. 217 of 2011 (O&M) [2] the property left by their father Ram Dass and Ram Dass was not competent to execute the agreement of sale or alienate the property through Court sale dated October 7, 1997. The claim of the defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 throughout the case was that it was the self-acquired property of Ram Dass as such he had a right to sell the same. The Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that Ram Dass in previous suit filed by Dalel Singh and Karan Singh for possession by way of specific performance of the sale has raised a specific plea that the suit land was property of Hindu undivided family and the property being an ancestral coparcener property he had no authority to enter into an agreement of sale. The said plea had been rejected by all the Courts till Supreme Court as a result of which Ram Dass had been compelled to execute sale deed in favour of defendant- respondents Karan Singh and Dalel Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the property in the hands of Ram Dass was self-acquired property. It is claimed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by principle of res judicata as the judgment and decree passed against Ram Dass is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were not party in the earlier suit. It is contended that annexures A1 to A-11, is the revenue record received, containing the record received from District Majo Sibiawala (Pakistan) indicates that the property had been inherited by Ram Dass and it was coparcenary property in the hands of Ram Dass. R.S.A. No. 217 of 2011 (O&M) [3] After hearing counsel for the appellants and going through these documents, it is apparent that all these are not part of the record and that the plea of Ram Dass himself in a suit for specific performance filed by Karan Singh and Dalel Singh was that the property was held to be self- acquired property in his hands. After arriving at a conclusion that the property in the hands of Ram Dass was self-acquired property, the suit for specific performance of defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 was decreed in an earlier suit and Court sale deed dated October 7, 1997 had been executed in favour of the defendant- respondents. The judgment and decree passed by Civil Court had been upheld till the Apex Court. The judgments passed against Ram Dass holding that the property in his hand was self-acquired property, will be binding on the heirs of Ram Dass. The property in the hands of Ram Dass have been held to be self-acquired property as a finding of fact in the earlier suit as well as by the Courts below. The documents which are sought to be placed on record as additional evidence could have been produced by Ram Dass in earlier suit which was filed against him on the basis of an agreement of sale of March 5, 1985. The said documents having not been produced by Ram Dass in a suit for specific performance filed against him, the documents could have also been produced by the plaintiff- appellants before the Courts below but having not been able to give any justification for not producing the documents during trial, no ground is made out for allowing the application for additional evidence. No substantial question of law appears to be involved in the appeal. No ground is made out for interference. R.S.A. No. 217 of 2011 (O&M) [4] Dismissed. January 17, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE