RSA No.4166 of 2009 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4166 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.04.2011 Sukhpal Singh ……Appellant Versus Charanpal Singh and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Sukhpal Singh-plaintiff, having lost in both the Courts below, is in second appeal. Defendant No.2-Manbhari Devi since deceased (represented by respondent Nos.2 to 12 as her legal representatives) was owner in possession of the suit land having allegedly inherited it from Badri. It appears that Badri had three sons i.e Harpal Singh (father of the plaintiff), Parkash Chand (father of defendant No.1- Charanpal Singh) and Naseeb Singh (husband of defendant No.2). Naseeb Singh had since died. Defendant No.2 was issueless. Plaintiff alleged that in family settlement, defendant No.2 gave the suit land to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal shares, but defendant No.1 has obtained consent judgment and decree dated 20.11.1993 from defendant No.2 regarding the entire suit land. The said consent judgment and decree have been challenged in the suit being result of fraud and misrepresentation. RSA No.4166 of 2009 (O & M) - 2 - Defendant No.1 contested the suit and defended the consent judgment and decree in question and claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2006 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hissar vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Consent judgment and decree in question were suffered by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. However, defendant No.2 did not challenge the same. If the same had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation from defendant No.2, she was at liberty to challenge the same on this ground, but she never did so. Defendant No.2 had inherited the suit property from her deceased husband Naseeb Singh. Consequently, defendant No.2 was absolute owner of the suit land. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot challenge the consent judgment and decree in question suffered by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff has no locus standi to do so. Plaintiff’s case is based on alleged family settlement. However, there is no cogent evidence to prove the alleged family settlement whereby half of the suit land was given by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. RSA No.4166 of 2009 (O & M) - 3 - Both the Courts below have analyzed the evidence and non-suited the plaintiff by recording concurrent finding. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 28.04.2011. A.kaundal