R.S.A.No.454 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.454 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2011 Gurnam Singh ......Appellant Versus Piara Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Thind Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that vide sale deed dated 31.12.2002, defendant No.1 had sold the suit land to defendants No.2 and 3. The said sale deed was null and void and was a result of undue influence and misrepresentation and without R.S.A.No.454 of 2009(O&M) 2 any consideration. The suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. Plaintiff being son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendants No.2 and 3 was co-owner in the suit property by birth. Defendants No.2 and 3 with an intention to grab the share of the plaintiff had got the sale deed executed in their favour. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was not the son of Piara Singh but, infact, was son of Saudagar Singh. Mohinder Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, was earlier married to Saudagar Singh and the plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock. After the death of Saudagar Singh, Mohinder Kaur got married to defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 born out of the said wedlock. Hence, the plaintiff had no interest in the suit property owned by defendant No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff pichlagg son of defendant No.1? If so, its effect ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Relief.” R.S.A.No.454 of 2009(O&M) 3 The Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1 Piara Singh and hence he could not have executed the sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that he was son of Piara Singh. However, it came on record that Mohinder Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, was earlier married to Saudagar Singh and plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, Mohinder Kaur performed marriage with Piara Singh after the death of Saudagar Singh and defendants No.2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock. Assuming that the property in the hands of Piara Singh was ancestral in nature even then the plaintiff, who was not the son of Piara Singh, could not claim interest in the said property by birth. However, in the present case, the plaintiff had failed to establish that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1, who was the exclusive owner of the suit property, could dispose of the same in the manner he liked. R.S.A.No.454 of 2009(O&M) 4 No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2011 anita