R.S.A. No. 663 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 663 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.12.2010 Gajender Singh ... Appellant Versus Harphool Singh & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) C.M. No. 1855 – C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons disclosed in the application, which is supported by an affidavit the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 663 of 2010 This is the second appeal preferred by Gajender Singh- appellant/plaintiff, whose suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.5.1977 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is without legal necessity and consideration and as such is null and void being against agricultural custom and the sale deed dated 9.6.1981 executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4, pattanama dated 11.12.1985 and sale deed dated 11.12.1985 are illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights and for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 5 and 6 from alienating the suit land and from raising any R.S.A. No. 663 of 2010 (O&M) -2- construction thereon, was dismissed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Gurgaon and the first appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the son of defendant No.7 and the land in dispute is their ancestral property as they are governed agricultural custom. Without any legal necessity defendant No.7 sold the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 21.7.2010 for the sale consideration of ` 25,000/- and those defendants further sold the same in favour of defendants no. 3 and 4 vide sale deed dated 9.6.1981. Defendants no. 3 and 4 executed a fictitious pattanama in favour of defendant No.5 and transferred ownership of this land favour of defendant No.6 vide sale deed dated 11.12.1985. All these documents are illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights. The suit was contested by defendants No. 5 and 6. In their written statement they admitted the execution of the documents as mentioned in the plaint. They denied the other contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and the same is not maintainable. The same is barred by time and is not properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction. After the issues were framed opportunity was given to the parties to produce their evidence and after going through the evidence so produced and hearing learned counsel on their behalf findings were recorded by the trial Court against the plaintiff and his suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 663 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to satisfy this Court that any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Concurrent findings of fact were recorded by both the lower Courts. The plaintiff has based his suit on agricultural custom. The custom stands abrogated by Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In view of the fact that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the same is dismissed. December 14, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge