Rajinder Kumar and Another vs Baldev Raj and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—This is second appeal by legal representatives of Shyam Lal Plaintiff since deceased having failed in both the Courts below.

In the suit the Plaintiff challenged alienations made by his father Madho Ram by way of sale, gift, exchange etc. The suit land is situated in two villages. The land in village Muchhal was allegedly inherited by Plaintiffs father Madho Ram from his own father Narain Dass whereas 1/3rd share in the land situated in village Sangarkot was inherited by Plaintiffs grandfather Narain Dass from his maternal grandmother. It was pleaded that the suit land was coparcenary, joint Hindu property of Plaintiff and his brother Hari Ram (father of Defendants No. 1 and 2) along with their father Madho Ram. Alienations made by Plaintiff''s father Madho Ram were without consideration and legal necessity.

Contesting Defendants broadly denied the plaint allegations and raised various pleas.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baba Bakala vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2003 dismissed Plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the Plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007. Feeling aggrieved, legal heirs of Plaintiff have filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the suit land is proved to be ancestral because Plaintiff''s father inherited it from his own father Narain Dass. The contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Gift deed made by Plaintiffs father in favour of Defendant No. 14 was challenged by the Plaintiff by filing an earlier suit which stands dismissed. In that suit, suit land of village Muchhal was held to be not Joint Hindu family property. It is surprising that in spite of dismissal of the said suit, the instant second suit has been filed challenging the said gift deed and some other alienations.

In addition to the aforesaid, the Plaintiff in the plaint did not even give details or particulars of the alienations sought to be challenged in the suit. Moreover, the Plaintiff''s father died on 10.6.1979 as pleaded in the plaint itself. However, the instant suit was instituted 4.4.1995 i.e. almost 16 years after the death of Plaintiffs father Madho Ram to challenge alienations made by Madho Ram during his life time i.e. prior to 10.6.1979. The suit is, thus, hopelessly barred by limitation. The Plaintiff would not have remained silent for 16 years if the alienations had been null and void. In absence of details of the alienations also, the alienations cannot be held to be null and void. Moreover, there is no explanation why the Plaintiff while challenging the gift deed in favour of Defendant No. 14 by filing an earlier suit did not challenge the other alienations in that suit.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below against the Plaintiff is justified by evidence on record and is supported by very detailed reasons recorded by the Courts below. Said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Therefore, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.