R.S.A. No. 537 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 537 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2009 Harbhajan Singh ....appellant versus Nachhattar Kaur and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration to challenge the sale deed dated 8.12.1995, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit for declaration claiming that the suit property was ancestral, coparcenary Joint Hindu Family Property. Plaintiff was son of defendant No. 2, and they were governed by Hindu Law for the purposes of succession and alienation. It was further case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendant No. 3 vide sale deed dated 8.12.1995, which was illegal and without any authority. The sale R.S.A. No. 537 of 2006 (O&M) -2- deed was challenged being illegal, null and void on the plea that defendant No. 2 was man of extravagant habits, and he used to sell the produce of the agricultural land with M/s Mohkam Singh Commission Agent, Rajpura, for fulfilling his lust of wine and other bad habits Defendant No.2 thereafter suffered a money decree in favour of M/s Mohkam Singh Commission Agent, Rajpura, illegally and wrongfully regarding loan. On the basis of collusive decree, the suit land was put to sale in execution of decree by Tehsildar, Rajpura, on 18.7.1989. The said decree and sale deed was challenged being illegal and null and void. The plaintiff claimed to have right by way of birth in the suit proeprty, thus, sought declaration referred to above. The written statement was filed to contest the suit, filed by the plaintiff/appellant, wherein the factum of property being Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property was denied. It was also denied that the plaintiff was son of defendant No. 2, rather he was said to be son of Hazura Singh, who is brother of Gurnam Singh. The sale deed was said to be legal and valid. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 was fully competent to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3, as he was in possession of the same. The decree was also said to be legal and enforceable. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief." R.S.A. No. 537 of 2006 (O&M) -3- On appreciation of evidence, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration prayed for. It has been further held that he had no locus standi to challenge the sale deed, as he was not proved to be son of defendant No. 2, to claim any right in ancestral Joint Hindu Family property. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of evidence, thus, perverse?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the property in the hands of defendant No. 2 was coparcenary Hindu Joint Family property, which could not be sold except for legal necessity, and the plaintiff/appellant being adopted son had interest in the suit property. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the learned Courts below committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant by misreading the evidence. There is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove that he was the son of defendant No. 2, rather he was proved to be son of Hazura Singh, thus, had no locus standi to challenge the sale made by defendant No. 2. It cannot be said that there is any misreading of evidence in recording R.S.A. No. 537 of 2006 (O&M) -4- the finding referred to above. The substantial question of law raised does not arise for consideration in this appeal, as the findings are not based on misreading of evidence. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 01, 2009 R.S.