IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.411 of 1988 Decided on : 08.09.2009 Joginder Singh ... Appellant versus Sube Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Surjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the alienation made by his father Om Parkash. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether custom governing agriculturists in Haryana stands abrogated by the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act? ii)Whether a son can challenge an alienation of ancestral property made by his father? iii)Whether plaintiff appellant has locus standi to file the suit out of which the above noted appeal has arisen? RSA No.411 of 1988 -2- iv)Whether the parties are governed by Special Custom prevalent in Jhajjar? v)Whether the Full Bench decision in 1976 PLR 342 lays down correct law? vi)Whether the judgments and decrees of Courts below are perverse? Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that questions No.(i) & (v) have now been conclusively determined by a full bench of this Court in RSA No.528 of 1997 as follows: “In Haryana the property in the hands of a successor may be held to be coparcenary property as well as ancestral property as known to customary law. It is well settled that the parties can fall back upon Hindu Law in case they fail to establish that the rule of decision is custom. Therefore, in Haryana both under Hindu Law and the Customary Law the alienation would be open to challenge. It is not easy to contemplate all those situations which on the facts of each case would emerge by application of Hindu Law in contra distinction to that of Customary Law with regard to alienation.” It is thus, clear that while Customary Law regarding alienation has been completely abrogated in the State of Punjab, the same cannot said for the State of Haryana. The ld. Lower RSA No.411 of 1988 -3- Appellate Court has found that under the Riwaj-e-aam of Rohtak district the only restriction regarding alienation is that the same cannot be made for any immoral purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the alienation made by his father was for any immoral purpose. Consequently, even though questions No.(ii) & (iii) have to be held in favour of the appellant yet in view of the findings of the Ld. Lower Appellate Court regarding the riwaj-e- aam of Rohtak district it has to be held that the decision of these questions in favour of the appellant would not help his case. Questions No.(iv) & (vi) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. September 08, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE