16. Learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that property was given to the plaintiff in family settlement, so, he has become owner. However, in my opinion, family settlement is not proved at all in the evidence. Even if, it is taken that it was an oral family settlement between the parties, even then, plaintiff is required to prove date and year in which, family settlement took place and who were the persons present at the time of family settlement. No Panch or Sarpanch of village has been examined. PW1 Setar Mohammad has been examined by plaintiff, who has stated that plaintiff has received the property ABCDEF shown in the site plan from his father and raised construction. However, he has no where stated that he was present at the time of alleged family settlement. The plaintiff has also examined Nirmal Singh as PW3. He is resident of Village Chattar Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. He has also not stated that he was present at the time of family settlement. So, story of the plaintiff that he got the property in dispute in family settlement has not been established. If family settlement is not established. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 Gurdev Singh is owner of property in dispute, then status of the plaintiff over the property in dispute is that of licensee, even though, he is son of Gurdev Singh, because, in property of the father, if it is not ancestral property, sons only resides as license and they cannot claim any proprietary right of the property. So, in view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, perversity, infirmity in the findings of trial court on issues no.1 and 3, I concur with the same.
