Nasib Singh & ORS v. Sandeep & ORS

RSA No.2167 of 2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2167 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.12.2018 Nasib Singh and others ....Appellants Vs Sandeep and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Yashjot S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in lying challenge to the registered Gift Deed No.1302/1 dated 24.2.1997 executed by Jeet Singh in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of house bearing No.163, Ward No.2 situated in Mohalla Majri, Shahabad (M), Tehsil Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra. Mr. Dhaliwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Jeet Singh was son of Sarda Ram. He had four sons and three daughters. Since the property at his hand was ancestral, he could not have executed the gift deed except for legal necessity. There was no extra love and affection for the donees namely defendant No.1 and 2. Defendants admitted the nature of the property to be ancestral. The suit property vested in the Municipal Committee only in the year 1989 and since it was abadi deh, there was no proof to establish coparcenary but due to implication, the factum of property being ancestral has been established, therefore, there is illegality and perversity.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.2167 of 2017 (O&M) -2I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, as the appellants-plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge the onus. In the absence of the same, it could not shift upon the defendants to rebut. Even if the suit property was abadi deh, there were rapat roznamchas to establish that Jeet Singh inherited the suit property from his father Sarda Ram. Had that evidence been brought on record, perhaps plaintiffs have some case, being 4th generation in lineage. In the absence of the same, the property in dispute being the self-acquired property, Jeet Singh executed the gift deed.

In view of this matter, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact and law arrived at by the Courts below, 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 November 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document