R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.Nos.12716 & 17-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008 Date of decision : December 24, 2008 Harphool Singh and others ...... Appellants. through Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate v. Smt. Ajmero Devi and others ...... Respondents 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) C.M.No.12716-C of 2008 For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed and delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.12717-C of 2008 For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed and delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.4245 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants challenging the decree, suffered by their sister with regard to her share of inherited land in favour of the nephews of the parties. R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008(O&M) ::2:: Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that an admission had been made by the beneficiaries of that decree that the land in dispute had been inherited by Inder Singh (father of the appellants) from his father. The Courts below have found that land measuring 48 bighas out of suit property was purchased by Inder Singh and two his brothers in 1918 and have, thus, not given any credence to the alleged admission of the respondents. As regards the remaining property of Inder Singh i.e about 22 bighas, no evidence has been led by the appellants that the same devolved upon Inder Singh from his ancestors. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found with the finding of the Courts below holding the property in dispute to be non ancestoral in the hands of Inder Singh and consequently holding that his daughter inherited equally as class-I heir. Learned counsel has further argued that the decree in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 was compulsorily registerable. The Courts below have rightly found that since it was an absolute property of Ajmero Devi, thus, the appellants have no locus to challenge her divestation on the ground that the decree was compulsorily registerable. In this view of the matter, the questions proposed are answered against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 24, 2008. JUDGE `kk'