Regular Second Appeal No. 2478 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2478 of 2007 Date of Order: 09.07.2009 Teja Singh ....Appellant Versus Major Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.R.Bharadwaj,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.R.Nohria, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 4. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant lays challenge to judgments and decrees dated 09.10.2004 and 27.11.2006, passed by the civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri and the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing his suit and his appeal. Teja Singh, appellant filed a suit, praying for a declaration that as land measuring 67 Bighas and 2 Biswas is ancestral, joint Hindu Family property. Gurdev Singh, had no right to suffer a collusive decree dated 26.08.1995 in favour of his grand sons. Upon notice, respondents no.1 to 3 denied that the suit land is ancestral, joint hindu family or coparcenary property as it was inherited by Gurdev Singh from Harnama, a sixth degree collateral. Gurdev Singh, who was arrayed as defendant no.4 filed a written statement accepting the correctness of the stand taken by respondents no.1 to 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence:- “1. Whether the property in dispute is ancestral joint Hindu Regular Second Appeal No. 2478 of 2007 -2- Family and co-parcenary property?OPP 2. Whether the judgment decree in civil suit no.80 dated 20.2.95 decided on 26.08.1995 titled as Major Singh vs. Gurdev Singh is null and void, ineffective and Sham Transaction?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?OPP 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by the principal of resjudication?OPD 7. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and arguments addressed, the trial court held that as the suit land inherited from the estate of Harnama, a sixth degree collateral, it was the personal property of Gurdev Singh and, therefore, the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the decree suffered by Gurdev Singh in favour of respondents no.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 27.11.2006 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant contends that the findings that the suit land is personal and not ancestral property is incorrect. It is argued that even if it is proved that the suit land is the personal property of Gurdev Singh, it would partake the nature of ancestral property as it has blended with ancestral property. It is further argued that the courts below have Regular Second Appeal No. 2478 of 2007 -3- misread the evidence and, therefore, recorded conclusions that are erroneous in law. The collusive decree is void as Gurdev Singh could not suffer a decree to the detriment of the appellant's rights as a member of the coparcenery/joint Hindu family. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that in view of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, the appeal be dismissed. The appellant has failed to establish that the suit land is ancestral. Even before this court, no error of law has been pointed out in the impugned judgments. It is argued that the plea of blending of the personal property with ancestral property has neither been pleaded nor proved and should, therefore, be rejected. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decrees. Counsel for the appellant, has framed four questions of law, stated to be substantial questions of law, which read as follows:- 1. Whether karta of a Joint Hindu Family and coparcenary property can transfer the same by way of collusive decree in favour of his grandsons and mar the share of his another son. 2. Whether family settlement alleged inclusive decree can take place in the absence of appellant who is son of Gurdev Singh deceased and is coparcner in the suit property by virtue of his birth. 3. Whether Ld. Courts below have discussed and appreciated the evidence on record as per law. 4. Whether ld. Lower appellate court was required to return findings issue vide being final court of fact as. The first two questions would arise only, if the appellant succeeds in establishing that the suit land is ancestral property. Counsel Regular Second Appeal No. 2478 of 2007 -4- for the appellant has failed to advance any argument that would even remotely suggest that the suit land is ancestral, It is not denied that the suit land was inherited by Gurdev Singh from a sixth degree collateral. Consequently, the findings by the courts below that the land is not ancestral are affirmed and, therefore, the first and the second questions of law do not arise for consideration. The third question of law is vague as counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any evidence that has not been discussed or appreciated by the courts below. The fourth question of law is that issuewise findings have not been recorded. A perusal of the first appellate court's judgment discloses that the issues decided by the trial court have been dealt with in detail and all arguments addressed have been considered and answered. The argument that this property has blended with ancestral property and would, therefore, partake the character of ancestral property cannot be accepted for lack of any such pleading or evidence. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. July 09, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE