Sunehari vs Sarwan Kumar And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9187 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082961




122                                                                 2023:PHHC:082961



          In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                             Regular Second Appeal No. 383 of 2023 (O&M)

                                                   Date of Decision: 03.07.2023


Sunheri
                                                                     ... Appellant(s)

                                          Versus

Sarwan Kumar and Others
                                                                  ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:      Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate
              for the petitioner(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana

and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab

Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi

(Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. While challenging the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by

both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second

appeal.

3. The plaintiff's suit for grant of decree of declaration to the

effect that she is the owner to the extent of 1/9th share in the land measuring

125 kanals and 5 marlas has been dismissed by both the Courts below. She

claims that the property is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of

her father, therefore, the judgment and decree passed on 25.07.1990 on the

basis of the family settlement is null and void.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082961

2023:PHHC:082961

4. Ram Kishan (defendant No.5), on the basis of the family

settlement, acknowledged his four sons as the owners of the property vide

judgment and decree dated 25.07.1990. The appellant has filed a suit on

27.08.2013 claiming that such decree is null and void as her father has no

right to transfer the property. The trial Court dismissed the suit after

appreciating the evidence produced by the plaintiff. The defendant No.5

claimed that the property was neither ancestral nor coparcernery. It has

come in evidence that the grandfather of the appellant received the property

through a court decree. It has further been found that the plaintiff has failed

to connect the mutation No. 530 (Ex.PW.2/A) with the suit property.

Moreover, the suit was filed after a period of 23 years.

5. The learned counsel representing the appellant has, though,

made a sincere endevaour, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court

to any substantive error either in the appreciation of evidence or otherwise.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by both the

Courts below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

7. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 03, 2023 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082961

2 of 2