R.S.A No. 1080 of 1983 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1080 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision : October 28, 2009 Surjeet Singh ...... Appellant (s) v. Sucha Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the gift deed made by Parsin Kaur his mother in favour of Sucha Singh his nephew and, (her grand son) in respect of 1/4th of the land left behind by Dasondhi. Both the Courts have found that Parsin Kaur had become owner of the property in lieu of maintenance (since Dasondhi had died in 1953) and that after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, her title in the property ripened into full ownership and consequently she was capable of executing R.S.A No. 1080 of 1983 (O&M) ::2:: the impugned gift deed. Since this appeal was filed in 1983, no question of law was proposed. However, subsequently counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions :- “ i) Whether custom needs to be specifically pleaded and proved ? ii) Whether judgment of the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is perverse, the same being based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence ? iii) Whether any person can convey a better title than he himself possess ? As regards question No. (i), it needs to be pointed out that the respondents were not seeking to establish their title through custom but through the general Shastri Hindu law which was in operation before coming into force the Hindu Succession Act. It was in fact the appellant who had pleaded that under a special custom applicable to Sainis, the sons inherited to the exclusion of the mother. In Mihan vs Inder, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 124, a Full Bench of this Court has held that due to several reformative legislative exercises, as far as the agriculturists of Punjab are concerned, they would be governed by Hindu law and not by any special custom. In these circumstances, question No. (i) would have to be held against the appellant. Question No. (ii) is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require R.S.A No. 1080 of 1983 (O&M) ::3:: interference of this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question No. (iii), once it is upheld that the interest of Parsin Kaur in the property had ripened into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said question would also have to be answered against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. October 28, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE