R.S.A.No. 1306 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1306 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 18.3.2011 Kamla and others ......Appellants Versus Badri Parsad and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 were nephews of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was more than 70 years old and was residing under the care and protection of his nephews. Defendants No.1 and 2 were daughters of plaintiff No.1. Defendants No.3 and 4 were the sons of defendant No.1 and defendants No.5 and 6 were the sons of defendant No.2. Plaintiff No.1 was absolute owner of the house in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 had disposed of agricultural land and had distributed the consideration between defendants No.1 and 2 in equal shares. The suit property R.S.A.No. 1306 of 2011(O&M) 2 was sold by plaintiff No.1 to plaintiffs No.2 to 4 vide sale deed dated 12.4.2004. Mutation No.1273 dated 30.9.2004 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 came on the pretext to visit plaintiff No.1 in August 2006 and were allowed to stay in the house as guest. However, defendants filed civil suit No.336 of 2006 claiming ownership and possession qua the suit land. Defendants had no right or concern with the suit property. Defendants in their written statement averred that the suit had been filed as a counter blast to the civil suit filed by the defendants. Plaintiff No.1 had executed sale deed without any legal necessity. Defendants No.1 and 2 had right in the suit property by birth. Defendants were in possession of the suit property. The suit property was ancestral property in the hands of plaintiff No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property, as alleged if so to what effect? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is tess passer of the rooms, as alleged, if so to what effect ? OPP 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is bad for principle of resjudicata? OPD 5. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) dismissed the suit qua plaintiff No.1, whereas, the suit qua plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2010 for declaration that they had R.S.A.No. 1306 of 2011(O&M) 3 become owners in possession of the suit property in pursuance of sale deed dated 12.4.2004. The defendants were directed to vacate the suit property within two months. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendants by the Additional District Judge Vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 did not have any male issue. Hence, the property in the hands of plaintiff No.1 was his exclusive property. Plaintiff No.1 executed the sale deed dated 12.4.2004 in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 could not claim any interest in the suit property by birth. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly decreed the suit qua plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. During the course of arguments, it has also transpired that the suit filed by the defendants for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit property has since been dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 18, 2011 anita