RSA No. 1784 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No. 1784 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.10.2008 **** Jagat Pal and another …. Appellant(s) Vs. Jagdish and others ….Respondent(s) **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land measuring 13 kanals 8 marlas, comprising in Sq. No.60 Killa No.8 (5-8), 9(8-0) satiated at Village Kusumbhi, Tehsil and District Sirsa was sold by defendant No.2 Ramji Lal to defendant No.1 Jagdish for a consideration of Rs.23,450/- vide registered sale deed No.4317 dated 26.12.1983. The plaintiffs are the grand-sons of defendant No.2 Ramji Lal. They have claimed that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Ramji Lal and since plaintiffs were the coparceners and members of the Joint Hindu Family, defendant No.2 Ramji Lal RSA No. 1784 of 2008 - 2 - had no legal right to sell the land in favour of defendant No.1 Jagdish. It was further submitted that the defendant No.2 Ramji Lal had a right only to manage the land including the suit land being the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family but had no legal right to sell the same without the necessity of any kind. The land has been sold without the consent of the coparceners only to satisfy his bad habit of gambling and drinking. While contesting the suit, preliminary objections were taken with regard to maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, concealment of facts, mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. On merits, it was inter alia pleaded that, suit land was not ancestral land. Rather defendant No.2 was the absolute owner of the suit property as it was self acquired property and the same was sold by him for consideration for a legal necessity and hence the case set up by the plaintiff was unsustainable. It has been further pleaded that plaintiffs are living separately from respondent No.2 Rameshwar son of Ramji Lal for the last several years. Other sons of Ramji Lal are also living separately and as such it cannot be said that defendant No.2 and plaintiffs constitute the joint family. No replication was filed by the plaintiffs to the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the land in dispute is ancestral land in the hands of defendant No.2 Ramji Lal and since the land has been sold without legal necessity, therefore the sale deed dated 26.12.1983 (Ex.P1) was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ex.P3 copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, Ex.P4 copy of RSA No. 1784 of 2008 - 3 - jamabandi for the year 1960-61 and Ex.P5 copy of mutation and submitted that these documents proved the land to be ancestral. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his assistance. All the aforesaid documents have been discussed by both the Courts below threadbare and have found that the land in question is not proved to be ancestral land. Nor the plaintiffs have placed any document on record to show that the land was inherited by his fore-fathers. It is well settled that every land/property is deemed to be self acquired land until and unless it is proved to be ancestral by leading cogent evidence. In view of the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts’ below that the land in question is not an ancestral land, no question of law much less substantial arises in the present appeal, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed in liminie. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 15.10.2008 JUDGE vivek