R.S.A No. 1012 of 1985 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1012 of 1985 Date of decision : October 01, 2008 Mohar Singh, ...... Appellant. through Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate v. Kamal Singh and another ...... Respondents through Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.1984 whereby the Additional District Judge, Hisar allowed the appeal of Kamal Singh-respondent No.1 and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that the consent decree dated 11.1.1979, suffered by his father Molu in favour of respondent No.1, did not affect his rights. The questions of law, framed by counsel for the appellant, read as follows :- i) Whether there is a presumption regarding existence of Joint Hindu family between a father and sons, specially when they are admittedly Hindus ? R.S.A No. 1012 of 1985 ::2:: ii) Whether a partition or separation can take place between father and son, specially when the son is minor and incapable of entering into any contract ? Iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, separation and partition is proved between father and sons ? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned decree in favour of a stranger can be held to be legal and valid or not ? v) Whether a `karta' can alienate Joint Hindu Family property, without any legal necessity and consideration in favour of a stranger and if not, to what effect ? vi) Whether a decree suffered in favour of a stranger having no right at all needs compulsory registration ? Vii) Whether an oral gift not accompanied by possession can be held to be valid or not ? Viii) Whether the findings recorded by the Appellate Court on the basis of non-consideration of oral and documentary evidence can be held to be legal in the eyes of law or not ? Before me, the dispute rests within a narrow campus viz whether the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Molu and consequently whether the plaintiff/appellant could challenge the decree on the ground of its non registration. As regards the nature of the property in the hands of Molu, the lower Appellate Court found as follows :- R.S.A No. 1012 of 1985 ::3:: “...... Column No.15 of the mutation Ex.P2 goes to show that previously Sheoji etc. were the owners of the suit land. The maternal grandfather of Sardara and Molu had purchased the suit land in the name of their daughters' sons i.e Sardara and Molu. This documentary evidence belies the version given by the plaintiff and his witnesses and the above discussed evidence goes to prove that suit land was non-ancestral property in the hands of Molu, as it had been purchased in his name by his maternal grandfather. In view of the law contained in Mohammad Husain Khan and others v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai AIR 1937 Privy Council 233, property inherited by father from maternal grandfather cannot be ancestral property. The learned counsel for the appellant also produced the ruling Smt. Ram Kali and another v. Pardip Kumar and others, AIR 1980 Punjab Naryana 345 where it has been laid down that land received by vendor under gift by father is non-ancestral in the hands of vendor and that the sale of land cannot be challenged by the sons of the vendor.....” In view of this finding of fact, it has to be held that the property was not ancestral in the hands of Molu. In this background, the question which survives is whether the plaintiff/appellant could challenge the decree on the ground of its non registration. In my opinion, the plea regarding non registration of the decree would have been available to the plaintiff/appellant only if it could be R.S.A No. 1012 of 1985 ::4:: shown that he had a subsisting interest in the property at the time of the consent decree. Since I have held that the property in dispute was not ancestral in the hands of Molu, consequently the plaintiff/appellant had no subsisting interest in the property as, admittedly, Molu was alive at the time of filing of the instant suit. In the circumstances, no questions of law arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 01, 2008. JUDGE `kk'