IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.4847 & 4848-C of 2010 in R.S.A.No.4095 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 4.5.2010 Bahadur Singh ....Appellant Versus Ved Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.4847-C of 2010 Delay of 7 days in filing the restoration application is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. Application stands allowed. C.M.No.4848-C of 2010 After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant- appellant, the application is allowed and the order dated 17.3.2010 is re-called for the reasons which have been stated in the application and the case is restored to its original number. R.S.A.No.4095 of 2009 (O&M) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff has questioned the findings C.M.No.4847 & 4848-C of 2010 in R.S.A.No.4095 of 2009 (O&M) -2- recorded by the learned trial Court and the first Appellate Court vide judgments dated 19.4.2007 and 26.9.2009, respectively. It is alleged that the plaintiffs along with respondents No.1 to 8 are descendants of Mam Raj and nephews of one Smt. Surji Devi. Said Surji Devi, who is the widow of Raghbir and is having 13/16 share in the suit property which is a joint Hindu family property, in a family settlement agreed to give her share to the appellant/plaintiffs in lieu of some compensation in the shape of ornaments and cash. The plaintiffs thus pleaded themselves to be the owners of the suit property on the basis of this family settlement. It is their case that they had requested Smt. Surji Devi to get the revenue entry corrected but she refused to do so and on inquiry they came to know that she has sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 25.3.1998 during the pendency of the suit. Said Surji Devi got recorded her statement and filed compromise Ex.CX admitting the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants. They pleaded that this sale deed is a result of forgery. The respondents denied the existence of the joint Hindu family and also denied that the property was joint. The averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint were also denied. It is pleaded that Smt. Surji Devi after the death of her husband was the absolute owner of the property and she sold it vide sale deed dated 25.3.1998. The parties went to trial on numerous issues out of which the relevant ones are extracted as under :- 1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property as alleged?OPP 2. Whether sale deed No.3797 dated 25.3.98 is null and C.M.No.4847 & 4848-C of 2010 in R.S.A.No.4095 of 2009 (O&M) -3- void and liable to be set aside as alleged?OPP Both the Courts below concluded that the appellant and his brother Sumer Singh had no right in the suit property and that Smt. Surji Devi was the absolute owner of the same and she had every right to alienate the suit property. The suit was accordingly dismissed which has resulted in the filing of instant regular second appeal in which learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since compromise Ex.CX was recorded which prima facie indicated the existence of a family settlement on the basis of which Smt. Surji Devi had been compensated in terms of ornaments and cash and in lieu thereof the suit property had been given to them. It was pleaded that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant contends that he and his brother Sumer Singh are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of a family settlement which has been acted upon by Smt. Surji Devi and she had suffered a statement in the Court of law in their favour. To a pointed question learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that the compromise Ex.CX was not translated into a court decree and before such a decree could fructify the property had been alienated. This fact alone is sufficient to discard the plea of the appellant. Before Surji Devi could acted upon the alleged compromise/family settlement she alienated the property. On the date of alienation she was the absolute owner and in absence of any right C.M.No.4847 & 4848-C of 2010 in R.S.A.No.4095 of 2009 (O&M) -4- having accrued in favour of the appellant/plaintiffs, their contention that they are owners in possession of the suit property cannot be accepted. The challenge to the sale deed which was in explicit terms also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their plea that the sale deed was a result of forgery and fraud. There is thus no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and consequently the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 4.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss