IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2339 of 2011O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011. Yatin Kumar and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Rajender Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.6439-C of 2011 Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.6440-C of 2011 The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. RSA No.2339 of 2011 RSA No.2339 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.06.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh vide which appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 10.05.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh dismissing suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs have taken the plea that they alongwith defendants no.2 to 4 are constituting joint Hindu family and that they are in joint possession of the property in dispute and that they are also residing in the property in dispute alongwith their parents. Further plea has been taken that sale deed dated 16.03.2005 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of present appellants-plaintiffs. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants no.1 and 2 by filing joint written statement by taking the plea that property in dispute was self acquired property and the same was sold for consideration vide impugned sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and since then defendant no.1 is continuing in possession as owner. Suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was dismissed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Case of the plaintiff is that the property in dispute is ancestral property of plaintiff and respondents- defendants no.2 to 4. and however, no evidence was adduced in order to 2 RSA No.2339 of 2011 prove the said fact. Respondent-defendant no.1 is claiming ownership of the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1. Even one of the plaintiffs when appeared in witness box had shown ignorance as to how defendant no.2 acquired the suit property. She also could not show that the suit property was purchased by defendant no.2. She also admitted that Rajender Kumar is residing in the house in dispute. Hence, it has been rightly held by learned courts below that it was self acquired property of Ram Dass, defendant no.2 which was sold by him to defendant no.1. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 6, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3