Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovish And Anr vs Niranjan Dass And Ors on 5 July, 2023
2023:PHHC:086145
R.S.A.No.4602 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.103
Case No. : R.S.A.No.4602 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 05, 2023
Lovish and another .... Appellants
vs.
Niranjan Dass (now deceased)
through his LRs .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. J. S. Grewal, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. This is Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings
passed by both the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
property in question is ancestral property, purchased from the money earned
by selling the ancestral property, which was coming from the forefathers.
The appellants have share in the property by birth and the respondents
deliberately transferred the property in question. Both the courts below fell
in error for not considering the documents produced by the appellants in
evidence. Adverse inference has been wrongly drawn against the appellants.
3. Heard.
MONIKA 4. The suit was filed by the appellants as the owners in possession
2023.07.11 13:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:086145
as the coparceners of the 1/6th share of immovable property, as mentioned in
the heading of the plaint. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated
05.11.2015, gave a definite finding that it has been clearly established by
defendant no.1 - Niranjan Dass that he has purchased the property in dispute
by way of sale deed from its erstwhile owner. The nature of the property in
the hands of Niranjan Dass is clearly self-acquired property and not being
the ancestral property, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed appeal against the
aforesaid judgment dated 05.11.2015. The learned Additional District
Judge-I, Fazilka, vide judgment dated 18.07.2017, dismissed the appeal,
upholding the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. It has been held
therein that the plaintiffs have failed to prove as to how the suit property is
the Joint Hindu Family, ancestral or coparcenery property and no old
revenue record was brought on the file showing the nature of the suit
property to be ancestral coparcenery property. The burden is always on the
plaintiff to prove the nature of the property. In the case in hand, the
plaintiffs before the Courts below, have failed to prove that the suit property
is ancestral property or was purchased with the funds arranged by selling the
ancestral property. The learned counsel for the appellants have failed to
point out which evidence was not taken into consideration. It cannot be said
that findings recorded by learned Courts below are perverse.
6. Accordingly, no question of law, much less substantial question
MONIKA
of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. So, there is no ground
2023.07.11 13:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:086145
to interfere in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. The appeal
being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed in limine.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
July 05, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2023.07.11 13:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
