RSA No.4729 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4729 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:13.07.2010 Chand Singh .... appellant Versus Kabal Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 passed by the then Senior Sub-Judge in Civil Suit No.455 of 1994 titled as “Kabal Singh and anr.vs.Sarwan Singh” and the subsequent revenue records were wrong, incorrect, null and void, based on fraud and misrepresentation and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff and against the terms and conditions of family settlement dated 07.03.1993 with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed. As per the averments, respondents No.1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiff's brother and respondent No.3 is his father. The dispute arose in RSA No.4729 of 2009(O & M) 2 the year 1993 which was settled by a family settlement and reduced into writing dated 07.03.1993 vide which the ownership and possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff-appellant and since then he was owner in possession of the property in question. On 09.10.2000 ,when the defendants openly asserted that they had procured the aforesaid judgement and decree and they will dispossess the appellant from the suit land, forcibly and illegally and also get the revenue record changed in their favour, he came to know from the Patwari Halqa that respondent No.3 had suffered a judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 against the interest of the appellant Thus the present suit was filed. The suit was opposed by the respondents by filing separate written statement. Respondent No.3, father of the plaintiff, in his written statement denied all the assertions of the plaintiff. The alleged family settlement was specifically denied and it was stated that the Civil court decree dated 27.08.1994 was passed by the competent court of law in accordance with law and was binding on the rights of the parties concerned. Respondents No.1 and 2 had taken identical pleas in their respective written statements and specifically denied ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In its order dated 10.08.2001, the trial Court noticed that on 12.04.2001, the appellant made a statement in the Court that defendant No.3 had expired on 13.02.2001. Thereafter, none moved any application to bring on record his legal representatives despite the fact that plaintiff is the son and respondents No.1 and 2 are the grandsons of respondent No.3. Thus, after referring Rule 2(b) of Order 22, trial Court proceeded ex parte against respondent No.3. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The trial RSA No.4729 of 2009(O & M) 3 Court after discussing the pleadings as well as evidence and law points concluded that appellant has failed to establish his rights over the suit land. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgement and decree dated 31.03.2009. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court noticed that despite the fact that appellant was basing his claim solely on the family settlement dated 07.03.1993, neither any such document was tendered in evidence, nor any revenue record reflecting such family settlement was placed on record and thus the appellant had miserably failed to prove his case. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to lay any challenge to the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 passed in Civil Suit No.455 of 1994 . Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this court by way of second appeal. Though, appellant has raised many substantial questions of law said to be arising in the present appeal, however, the pith and substance of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment and decrees of the courts below are the result of misreading and mis-appreciation of law and evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Admittedly, the appellant has filed the suit on the assertion that, in a family settlement, reduced into writing on 07.03.1993, he was handed possession of the suit land and thus he became owner in possession of the suit land and therefore respondent No.3 could not have suffered judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the aforesaid assertion of the appellant . No such family settlement dated 07.03.1993 as alleged, has been placed on record of the case. There is no RSA No.4729 of 2009(O & M) 4 other challenge to the authority of respondent No.3 to suffer the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 13.07.2010 neenu