R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.1.2011 Shiv Charan and another ......Appellants Versus Satya Narain .......Respondent ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Satya Narain filed suit for declaration for joint possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that parties were members of Joint Hindu Family. Defendant No.1 was under undue influence of Smt. Om Lata, mother of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1, father of the plaintiff, had deserted his wife Smt. Lali and had started residing with Smt. Om Lata. Land mentioned in paras No. 4 and 6 of the plaint was ancestral property of the parties. The plaintiff had interest in the suit property by birth. Defendant No.1 was not the absolute owner of the suit R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) 2 property and hence had no right to execute relinquishment deeds in favour of defendant No.2 qua the suit property. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied that the parties were members of Joint Hindu Family. Property in dispute was self-acquired property of defendant No.1. The release deeds dated 19.1.2000 and 21.1.2000 were perfectly legal and valid. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, denied that the parties were members of Joint Hindu Family. It was averred that the suit property was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and the release deeds in question were legal and valid. Mutation Nos.3440 and 3467 had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the release deeds. It was denied that defendant No.1 was under the influence of mother of defendant No.2. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether the relinquishment deed number 3440 dated 19.1.2000, 3467 dated 21.1.2000 and 3468 dated 21.1.2000 in respect of suit land mentioned in para No.4 to 6 of the plaint are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties ? OPD R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) 3 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court. 5. Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.6.2006 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the release deeds relating to land mentioned in paras No. 4 and 6 of the plaint were illegal and consequently they were set aside. The release deed with regard to land mentioned in para 5 of the plaint was set aside to the extent of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the property in question was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and hence the release deeds were liable to be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the relinquishment deeds have been rightly set aside by Courts below. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Appellant No.1 is the father of respondent, whereas appellant No.2 is the grand-son of appellant No.1. The lease deeds in dispute are Ex.P-6 dated 19.1.2000, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8 dated 21.1.2000. So far as release deed Ex.P-6 is concerned, defendant No.1 had already suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Raghbir R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Singh. Mutation Ex.P-9 was sanctioned on the basis of the Civil Court decree dated 17.4.1993 in favour of the plaintiff and Raghbir Singh. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the release deed Ex.P-6 could not be executed by defendant No.1 as he was no longer owner of the suit property in question on 19.1.2000, the date when the release deed was executed. So far as release deed Ex.P-8 is concerned, the property is described as ancestral property of defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 had purchased the said property vide sale deed Ex.D-2 dated 5.9.1991. The plaintiff had failed to establish that the said property had been purchased by defendant No.1 out of Joint Hindu Family funds. Thus, the property forming part of release deed Ex.P-8 was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and hence he could not execute release deed in favour of defendant No.2. The said property could have transferred by way of sale, gift or will but not by way of relinquishment deed. The Courts below had rightly come to a finding that the release deed Ex.P-8 was liable to be set aside as the same could not have been legally executed by defendant No.1. So far as the release deed Ex.P-7 is concerned, it is mentioned in the said deed that the property in question was ancestral property of defendant No.1. There is no evidence to the contrary. Since the property forming part of release deed Ex.P-7 was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1, he could not execute relinquishment deed qua the entire property as plaintiff also had 1/3rd share in the said property being a co-parcener. In these circumstances, the Courts below righty held that R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2008 (O&M) 5 release deed Ex.P-7 was liable to be set aside to the extent of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 13, 2011 Anand