Jiwan Singh v. Basakha Singh (Deceased) Thrugh Lrs. Gurmail Singh And ORS.

RSA No.945 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.945 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.01.2019 Jiwan Singh ...Appellant Vs Basakha Singh (deceased) through LRs and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Balbir Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming declaration being owner in possession of the suit property i.e. 8 marlas plot in Mullanpur Garibdas on the basis of family settlement arrived at during the life time of Basakha Singh. It was alleged that Basakha Singh had five children namely, Jiwan Singh, Gurmail Singh, Harnek Singh, Sher Singh sons and Surjit Kaur, daughter.

The aforementioned plot was purchased by Basakha Singh, half in his name and half in the name of Sher Singh. During his life time, Basakha Singh executed sale deed dated 03.07.2002 in favour of Sher Singh and Sher Singh executed sale deed dated 29.10.2003 in favour of defendant No.3, which could not have been done except for legal necessity, as the plaintiff had right by birth as suit property was purchased out of sale proceeds of ancestral property.

Defendants opposed the nature and character of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.28 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.945 of 2016 (O&M) -2property to be ancestral property but asserted to be self-acquired. Mr. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality and perversity in non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground that nature and character of the property has not been established as ancestral, for, family settlement entered into was not denied by the defendants.

I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Saini is not sustainable, as it is obligatory and incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the right by birth being 4th generation in lineage. In other words, Basakha Singh had derived the property from his forefathers. No documentary evidence in the shape of revenue excerpt brought on record. In such circumstances, courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit.

In view of aforementioned facts, arguments of Mr. Saini have not been able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 21, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.28 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document