Regular Second Appeal No.268 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.7.2010 Gurdial Singh son of Ujagar Singh ...Appellant Versus Karnail Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.G.Dogra, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Ujjagar Singh (since deceased) son of Thakar Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. He had three sons, namely, Karnail Singh, Sohan Singh and Gurdial Singh besides daughters. Ignoring the shares of the daughters etc., sons of Ujjagar Singh filed a collusive suit against him claiming their shares by virtue of oral family settlement/arrangement/adjustment. Be that as it may, Ujjagar Singh (defendant) died, during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place. Karnail Singh and Sohan Singh sons of Ujjagar Singh did not pursue the case and withdrew their claim. However, only Gurdial Singh prosecuted the suit. The trial court dismissed the collusive suit, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.7.2000. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, appellant Gurdial Singh filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002. 3. Appellant-plaintiff Gurdial Singh still did not feel satisfied with the Regular Second Appeal No.268 of 2003 2 impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 5. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the basis of admission of their father Ujjagar Singh, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Som Dev and ors v. Rati Ram and anr. 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 303 and this Court in case Hari Singh v. Gurcharan Singh and others 2003 (3) P.L.R. 119, are at all applicable to the facts of this case, whereby, it was observed that the decree can be passed on the basis of admission and such decree of civil Court based on family arrangement does not require registration. 6. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the appellant-plaintiff in the present controversy. 7. As is evident from the record, Ujjagar Singh son of Thakar Singh was the sole owner of the property in dispute. His sons Karnail Singh, Sohan Singh and Gurdial Singh without impleading his daughters filed a collusive suit for a decree of declaration against their father Ujjagar Singh claiming their ownership on the basis of oral family partition/settlement. During the pendency of the suit, Ujjagar Singh died and his LRs were brought on record. No doubt, initially defendant Ujjagar Singh filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs but later on, he moved an application for amendment of written statement to withdraw his admission, which was declined, vide order dated 2.4.1998. The same was affirmed by this Court, vide order dated 6.12.1999 passed in CR No.2549 of 1998. 8. Karnail Singh and Sohan Singh sons of Ujjagar Singh did not press their suit but plaintiff Gurdial Singh reiterated that it be decreed on the basis of Regular Second Appeal No.268 of 2003 3 oral family settlement. It is not a matter of dispute that collusive suit was not decreed on the basis of admission, which was withdrawn by Ujjagar Singh by virtue of application for amendment of written statement containing the admission and he had died before passing the decree. That means, appellant Gurdial Singh claimed his share in the suit land on the basis of oral family settlement. In that eventuality, a heavy burden of proof was upon him to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the property was ancestral joint Hindu family property and his father Ujjagar Singh had partitioned the same by way of oral family settlement in the month of April, 1994, depriving his daughters from their legitimate shares, but he has miserably failed in this relevant connection. In the wake of death of Ujjagar Singh (original defendant), appellant Gurdial Singh, his son, has no locus standi to deprive his other LRs from the property in dispute. Thus, all the LRs are entitled to inherit their respective shares by virtue of natural succession/inheritance of Ujjagar Singh. 9. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant-plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the property in dispute was ancestral joint Hindu family property or it was partitioned by Ujjagar Singh by way of oral family settlement and the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of admission of Ujjagar Singh, which had already been withdrawn by him by moving application in this respect. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts Regular Second Appeal No.268 of 2003 4 below, in this regard. 10. Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. 12. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 26.7.2010 Judge AS