RSA No. 4194 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 12116-C & 12117-C of 2011 and RSA No. 4194 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.10 .2011 Jagmohan Singh … Appellant Versus Amrit Kaur and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 12117-C of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed. Delay in making up the deficiency in the Court-fee is condoned. CM No.12116-C of 2011: For the cause shown in the application, delay of 454 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 4194 of 2011: Appellant Jagmohan Singh, i.e. plaintiff No.1 along with co-plaintiffs filed suit (which was amended by them) for joint possession of land measuring 23 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Seenpura, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala, on the ground that they along with their father Amar Singh and brother, i.e. defendant No.3-Manohar Singh constituted a joint Hindu Family and are coparceners. The land in dispute is ancestral land of the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 3, who are recorded as owners thereof in the revenue record. In the said suit also sought declaration to the effect that three sale-deeds dated 21.8.1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of No.2 as described in the head-note of the plaint, are not binding upon their rights and that of defendant No.3 and cannot affect their rights qua the disputed land. They further averred that no consideration was passed on to defendant No.1 nor he was in need of the same. Since defendant No.1 was RSA No. 4194 of 2011 2 not in a sound disposing mind and was aged about 90 years, a fraud has been committed by defendant No.2 upon defendant No.1 in getting the afore-said sale-deeds executed and registered. Further, they also sought permanent injunction for restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit property to any person in any manner or to take its forcible and illegal possession except in due course of law. Upon notice, the defendants denied the averments made in the suit and sought dismissal of the suit. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2007 holding that the suit property was neither ancestral nor joint hindu family property and the same had been partitioned in view of family settlement by way of court decree dated 25.5.1987 and that on the basis of partition, sale-deeds dated 24.8.1998, 26.8.1998 and 28.8.1998 whereby defendant No.1 had sold his share were legal and binding and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the claim sought for. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009. Now, this second appeal is only by the plaintiff No.1, Jagmohan Singh. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff No.1 contended that the property in dispute was joint hindu co-parcenary property and therefore, the sales effected by defendant No.1 were not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. He also contended that Exhibits D-1 and D-2 which were the copies of the earlier suit and the written statement respectively, had not been proved on record. It was further contended that the compromise, Exhibit PX, entered into between Manohar Singh and Amar Singh would show that there was no partition of land at any point of time. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. The plea that the land is co-parcenary property had been considered by both the Courts below in detail. It has been held that though an argument was raised that the land was allotted to Amar Singh and Gurdial Singh against claim for the land left by them in Pakistan but no link evidence regarding this fact had been produced. The Courts below have further held on the basis of Exhibits D-21 and D-22, judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court pertaining to the land in dispute, that the same was partitioned amongst the plaintiffs RSA No. 4194 of 2011 3 and the defendants and therefore, the property received by way of partition becomes the exclusive property of a person and could not be treated as coparcenary property. In this regard, the first appellate Court has not committed any mistake in following the law laid down in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Pandayachi and others, 1994(1) SALJ 565, Amiteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh and others 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 485 and Matu Ram (deceased) through Lrs v. Kartar ingh and others, 2004(2) P.L.R. 569. So far as the other argument raised with regard to legality of the sale-deeds executed by defendant No.1 is concerned, it has been held that those sale-deeds were not the result of any fraud because Amar Singh remained alive and he himself stated in the written statement filed by him that he had received the sale consideration and had executed the sale-deeds without any coercion or fraud having been played with him. The law laid down by this Court in Hari Singh v.Gurcharan Singh and others 2003(3) Recent Civil Reports 633 and State of Punjab v. Gurmel Singh 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 115 has rightly been followed by the first appellate Court. No other argument has been advanced. The arguments raised before this Court are based upon concurrent findings and no question of law, muchless substantial, arises which requires consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. October 20, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE