IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1360 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 27, 2009 Ramji Lal and others ....Appellants Versus Kuldeep Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, on 4.5.2005. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed the first appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, on 4.12.2006. They are now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants had sought decree for declaration that the release deed No. 278 dated 26.5.2000 allegedly executed by Sadhu Ram- defendant in favour of Kuldeep Singh-defendant in respect of the suit land on the basis of which mutation No. 320 was entered and sanctioned in favour of Kuldeep Singh-defendant was illegal, null and void, in-operative and not binding upon their rights as the same was executed by a person who was not competent and capable to do so. According to the appellants, the R.S.A. No. 1360 of 2007 -2- suit land was jointly owned and possessed by them and their brother, i.e., Sadhu Ram-defendant No.2 in equal shares. Said Sadhu Ram was an aged person, who was also deaf and dumb. He did not have sound disposing mind and also did not know about his good and bad. Kuldeep Singh- defendant was nephew of the plaintiffs and of Sadhu Ram-defendant. Said Kuldeep Singh obtained a civil Court decree in respect of the suit land in his favour on 3.2.1996, which was, however, set aside by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, when the plaintiffs challenged the same. However, Kuldeep Singh-defendant got executed the release deed dated 26.5.2000 in his favour from Sadhu Ram-defendant for which he had no legal right. The mutation entered on the basis of the said release deed was also liable to be set aside. The suit land was purchased from the joint Hindu family funds and as such, Sadhu Ram-defendant had got no legal right to alienate the same in favour of Kuldeep Singh-defendant or any other person. The release deed could not be executed in respect of the ancestral property as the property in dispute had been purchased from the joint Hindu family funds vide registered sale deed dated 24.9.1956 in the name of Sadhu Ram-defendant by the plaintiffs with the condition that the land would remain with him and after his death the plaintiffs would be owners in possession of the same in equal shares. Kuldeep Singh-defendant was trying to alienate the suit land on the basis of the release deed. He was requested by the plaintiffs to admit their claim but he refused. Hence, they filed the suit in question. R.S.A. No. 1360 of 2007 -3- The suit was opposed by the defendants, who filed their written statement alleging therein that the plaintiffs were not the members of the joint Hindu family as they had separated long ago by taking their shares and had been living separately for the last more than 20 years. The plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the property in dispute or any part thereof. It was admitted that Sadhu Ram-defendant was an aged person but according to the defendants he possessed full knowledge and good understanding as to what was good or bad for him. He was absolute owner in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, he rightly transferred the same in favour of Kuldeep Singh-defendant by executing the release deed. As such the plaintiffs had no right, title or authority therein nor they had any right to challenge the same. The defendants also denied that the suit land was purchased in the name of Sadhu Ram-defendant from the joint Hindu family funds. They, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit land was the ancestral property in the hands of Sadhu Ram-defendant as there was no evidence that the suit land was purchased in the name of Sadhu Ram-defendant through the funds of joint Hindu family. The main issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the suit property had been purchased in the name of Sadhu Ram-defendant from the R.S.A. No. 1360 of 2007 -4- joint Hindu family income and that the land was to remain with Sadhu Ram till he was alive and after his death the plaintiffs were to become owners in possession in equal shares of the same. The plaintiffs did not place on record the registered sale deed dated 24.9.1956. They only produced the copy of mutation Ex.P4. There is, thus, no material on the file to establish that the suit land was purchased out of joint Hindu family income or that there was some understanding regarding the share of Sadhu Ram-defendant in respect of the land purchased. Thus, the land purchased vide sale deed dated 24.9.1956 was self acquired property of all the purchasers including Sadhu Ram- defendant. Admittedly, the land measuring 44 kanals 5 marlas was inherited by Sadhu Ram and his brothers from their father but there is nothing on the record to establish that the land purchased vide sale deed dated 24.9.1956 was put in joint hotch-potch or mixed with the ancestral property without maintaining and reserving any right to put separate claim regarding the same. The plaintiffs had challenged the action of Sadhu Ram- defendant in executing the release deed dated 26.5.2000 on the ground that said Sadhu Ram was an aged person, who was also deaf and dumb and having no sound disposing mind. Further, he also did not know about his good and bad. There was no specific plea that Sadhu Ram was an insane R.S.A. No. 1360 of 2007 -5- person nor there was any evidence brought on the record in that regard. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot be now heard saying that no issue had been framed by the learned trial Court as to whether Sadhu Ram was an insane person or not. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper and correct appreciation of the material evidence available on the file. Neither these findings can be said to be perverse or suffer from any illegality or infirmity. As such, they cannot be disturbed and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellants, do not arise for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 27, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1