IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 424 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.1.2009 Sant Lal ...Appellant. Versus Gopi Ram and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Being unsuccessful before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 25.1.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, was dismissed. Put succinctly, the facts of the case are that defendant No.2 is father and defendants No.3 and 4 are the real brothers of the plaintiff and they formed a Joint Hindu Family. It was pleaded that plot No. 376 measuring 8 marlas, situated in village Neoli Kalan, Tehsil and District Hisar, was purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.2 and, therefore, the same was Joint Hindu Family property. Defendant No.2 was a patient of paralysis and defendant No.1, Gopi Ram, taking undue advantage of this ailment had got the sale deed of the suit property executed in his favour by producing an imposter of defendant No.2. The said sale deed was illegal, null and void being R.S.A. No. 424 of 2009 -2- based on fraud and misrepresentation. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 were in possession of the suit property and defendant No.1 wanted to occupy the same forcibly and to raise construction or to alienate the same to some one else which gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration. As a consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for. Upon notice, defendants No.1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit property was not a Joint Hindu Family property but it was the self-acquired property of defendant No.2 and he being healthy had himself got executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 by putting in appearance before the concerned Sub-Registrar. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit property on payment of due consideration and the sale deed bears photographs of defendant No.2. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the impugned sale deed Ex.P1 was not executed by defendant No.2 or that the suit property was joint Hindu Family property in the hands of defendant No.2. It was further held that defendant No.2 was exclusive owner of the suit property and the same was his self- acquired property. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the lower R.S.A. No. 424 of 2009 -3- appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant in the suit was that the property in dispute was a Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore, defendant No.2 could not have alienated the same in favour of defendant No.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence available on record as well as the unambiguous assertion of defendant No.2 (vendor) in his written statement that the suit property was his self- acquired property, had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the property in dispute was a Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiff along with defendants No.2 to 4. In the wake of the aforesaid finding, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any substantial question of law to be arising in this appeal. No illegality or perversity could be found in the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Further, no misreading or misappreciation of the evidence available on record has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. Furthermore, the execution of the sale deed (Ex.P1) in favour of defendant No.1 has been validly proved by the defendants by examining DW1-Narinder Jain, deed-writer, and DW2-Sube Singh, an attesting witness of the sale deed. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. R.S.A. No. 424 of 2009 -4- In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. January 22, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE