R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 01, 2011 Chandi Ram .... Appellant Vs. Satpal and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 3495-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 205 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 3496-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 73 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 3497-C of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) 2 C. M. No. 3498-C of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal : Defendant no.2 – Chandi Ram, having failed in both the courts below, is in second appeal. At the outset, it has to be noticed that Chandi Ram has mentioned himself to be son of Risala Ram in the `Memo of Parties', but admittedly, Chandi Ram is son of Telu Ram, as also mentioned in the judgment of trial court. However, Chandi Ram is step son of Risala Ram. Suit was filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff Satpal son of Risala Ram against his own mother Sanni Devi – respondent no.2/defendant no.1 (widow of Risala Ram) and against Chandi Ram – defendant no.2/appellant. Risala Ram – father of plaintiff and husband of defendant no.1 was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas. Risala Ram executed registered Will dated 19.12.1986. According to the said Will, defendant no.1 is entitled to only use the usufruct of the suit land during her lifetime with no right to alienate the same and after her death, plaintiff is to become absolute owner of the suit land. However, defendant no.1, in collusion with revenue officials, got sanctioned mutation no.606 of 07.04.1989 on the basis of the Will depicting defendant no.1 to be owner of the suit land and she now wanted to alienate the suit land. The plaintiff R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) 3 accordingly sought declaration that aforesaid mutation no.606 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1, who was sole defendant in the suit, from alienating the suit land was also claimed. Defendant no.2 was impleaded as party to the suit later on. Will in question executed by Risala Ram was admitted. However, defendant no.1 pleaded that in view of said Will, she is sole owner in possession of the suit land. Other plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Defendant no.2 – appellant pleaded that defendant no.1, vide relinquishment deed dated 13.06.2001, relinquished the suit land in favour of defendant no.2. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Whole case of both the parties is based on Will dated 19.12.1986 executed by Risala Ram. Execution of the said Will is, thus, not R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) 4 in dispute. Perusal of the said Will, as shown by learned counsel for the appellant, reveals that defendant no.1 was given right to only use the usufruct of the suit land with no right to alienate the same and after her death, plaintiff is to become absolute owner of the suit land. This fact becomes evident from a bare reading of the Will as a whole. Consequently, mutation of ownership of the suit land could not be sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1. The impugned mutation has, therefore, been rightly held to be illegal and null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in separate suit filed by defendant no.1 against defendant no.2, relinquishment deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 has been challenged and R. S. A. No. 940 of 2005, arising out of that suit, has already been admitted by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2008. However, filing and admission of the said RSA is of no help to the appellant in the instant case. As noticed herein before, defendant no.1 had no right to alienate the suit land. Consequently, alleged relinquishment deed would automatically fall to the ground. In the instant case, the plaintiff has challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 on the basis of Will and has also sought permanent injunction. The plaintiff is entitled to the said relief in view of contents of the Will. In addition to it, the relinquishment deed, set up by defendant no.2, is hit by doctrine of lis pendens as the said relinquishment deed was executed during pendency of the suit, out of which R. S. A. No. 1155 of 2010 (O&M) 5 instant RSA has arisen. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1 is fully justified by the evidence on record and in view of contents of the admitted Will. Consequently, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE