Second appeal by plaintiffs successful in claiming declaration and possession regarding 25 kanals 8 marals land. Court dismissed appeal finding no substantial question of law and disapproving argument that ancestors could not prove necessary conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.04 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1
RSA-1781-2016 (O&M)
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1781-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.11.2018
Ujjagar Singh and another
... Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. ****
AMIT RAWAL, J.
The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in claiming declaration, permanent injunction and possession in respect of land measuring 25 kanals 8 marals situated in Village Manka, on the premise that Bachitar Singh, the father of the plaintiffs, could not sell the land vide sale deed dated 30.04.2004 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as it was ancestral property.
Defendant Nos.1 & 2 opposed the suit by supporting the sale deed and denied the nature of the property to be ancestral. It was stated that Bachitar Singh had inherited the property from the father-Weryam Singh and not from Chamela Singh. Defendant No.3 also opposed the suit, but during the pendency of the suit died. It was further stated that the sale was for necessity.
Despite bringing on record extensive evidence in the shape of revenue record (Ex.P1 to Ex.P-6 & Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW3/1, Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/59) including the revenue excerpt-Mark A, the the trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred before the lower Appellate Court was also met with the same fate.
YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.04 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1781-2016 (O&M) 2
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that Bachitar Singh, during his life-time, in respect of land measuring 172 kanals 4 marlas situated in Village Bullana, had suffered a consent decree dated 20.03.1987 in favour of the plaintiffs. The said property was also ancestral, but could not have alienated the land measuring 25 kanals 8 marlas situated in Village Manka in the manner and mode. The nature and character of the property being ancestral has been proved through revenue excerpt as it was Chamela Singh, great grand-father of the plaintiffs, had inherited the property and therefore, the plaintiff being 4th generation in lineage had a right by birth.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as there is no denial to the fact and law that the ancestral property cannot be partitioned and even after partition, character remained ancestral. By virtue of the decree of 1987, the plaintiffs became owner of land measuring 172 kanals 4 marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share. There was equal distribution by the common ancestor in favour of the defendants.
As an upshot of my finding, I do not subscribe to the submissions of Mr. Bhardwaj to form a different opinion than the one already arrived at by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. No ground for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
26.11.2018 Yogesh Sharma
( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale of alleged ancestral property by Bachitar Singh was valid.
Whether substantial question of law arises to interfere with the lower courts' decrees.
Ujjagar Singh and another
Ashok Kumar and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
