RSA No.2351 of 2007 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2351 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:14.10.2010 Nand Kishore and another ...Appellants Versus Ombir and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court by which judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been set aside. The plaintiffs, who have filed the present appeal, filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 12.01.1989 and the lease deed of the same day on the ground that the property in dispute was ancestral and could not have been sold/transferred by way of lease by their father Raghbir Singh to the defendant without any legal necessity. The plaintiffs would succeed in the suit only if they could prove, on the basis of cogent evidence, that the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Raghbir Singh. It is well settled that a property is always non-ancestral until and unless proved to the contrary and in order to prove that the property is ancestral, the person, who is claiming the property in his hands to be ancestral, has to prove that the said property has devolved upon him through three generations, i.e. father, grandfather RSA No.2351 of 2007 (O&M) -2- ****** and great grandfather. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are contrary to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and is a result of misreading of evidence. He has drawn the attention of this Court to various jamabandis, which are on record, in order to connect the land in dispute with their great grandfather, namely, Sohan Lal. The document relied upon is a mutation No.109 of village Lalpur, Hadbast No.10, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon, in which there is no reference of any khasra number of the land which is alleged to be owned by the great grandfather of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the learned First Appellate Court, after taking into consideration the entire documentary evidence, has recorded a firm finding of fact that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to connect the land in question with the land which is alleged to be owned by their predecessor-in-interest up to three generations. In view of the fact that it is a case of pure finding of fact, in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which envisages that the second appeal could be maintained only on a substantial question of law which is conspicuously absent in this present appeal, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 14, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE