RSA-638-2022 (O&M) 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ram Avtar Subhash Chand and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. The plaintiff is in and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property as described in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the courts b 2. It was pleaded case of the appellant that the suit property bearing ie. House No.6816 as fully described in the plaint, had been purchased by mother of the parties Smt Swaraja Devi from Laxmi Narain vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 for dispute plaintiff along with defendants No.1 and 2 has 1/4 defendants No.3 to 5 have 1/4 plaintiff sought decree of partition for metes and bounds of the said suit prop purchased by mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 further stated that Defendant No.1 is i No.6816 in pursuance of a Will allegedly executed by father of the plaintiff 2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 VERSUS Subhash Chand and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgements and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property as described in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the courts b It was pleaded case of the appellant that the suit property bearing ie. House No.6816 as fully described in the plaint, had been purchased by mother of the parties Smt Swaraja Devi from Laxmi Narain vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 for total sale consideration of ₹32,000/ dispute plaintiff along with defendants No.1 and 2 has 1/4 defendants No.3 to 5 have 1/4th joint share. Accordingly, by way of the present suit plaintiff sought decree of partition for metes and bounds of the said suit prop purchased by mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 further stated that Defendant No.1 is in possession of property in dispute i No.6816 in pursuance of a Will allegedly executed by father of the plaintiff -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-638-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 ....Appellant ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the respondents. second appeal against the concurrent judgements and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property as described in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the courts below. It was pleaded case of the appellant that the suit property bearing ie. House No.6816 as fully described in the plaint, had been purchased by mother of the parties Smt Swaraja Devi from Laxmi Narain vide registered sale deed dated ₹32,000/-. Thus, in the property in dispute plaintiff along with defendants No.1 and 2 has 1/4th share each; and joint share. Accordingly, by way of the present suit plaintiff sought decree of partition for metes and bounds of the said suit property purchased by mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 to suit. It was n possession of property in dispute i.e. House No.6816 in pursuance of a Will allegedly executed by father of the plaintiff and second appeal against the concurrent judgements and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property as It was pleaded case of the appellant that the suit property bearing ie. House No.6816 as fully described in the plaint, had been purchased by mother of the parties Smt Swaraja Devi from Laxmi Narain vide registered sale deed dated . Thus, in the property in share each; and joint share. Accordingly, by way of the present suit erty to suit. It was e. House and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-638-2022 (O&M) defendant No.1 not authorised to execute the Will qua the su same. Plaintiff had made several requests to defendant No.1 to get the property partitioned, but to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 13.12.2011. 3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the oral and document evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Rewari, had dismissed suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgement in decree dated 02.07.2021. Hence present Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below by submitting that the learned Courts bel not appreciated the fact that the property in dispute was not owned by his father, but was in actual fact purchased by mother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 executed in her favour by Laxmi Narain. Thus, Ramji Lal father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the Will dated 14.08.2000 in favour of the defendant/ respondent No.1 in which he had relinquished the right of the property in favour of the defendant No.1. It is contended that while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the pleadings and the evidence, led by the plaintiff in support of his case from which it is proven that Ramji Lal had no authority to execute the impugned Will. 5. It is furth cannot be sustained also on account of the fact that the Courts below have wrongly concluded that there was a family settlement and arrangement arrived at between 2022 (O&M) defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff alleged that his father was not authorised to execute the Will qua the suit property as he was not owner of the same. Plaintiff had made several requests to defendant No.1 to get the property partitioned, but to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 13.12.2011. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the oral and document evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Rewari, had dismissed suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rewari vide judgement in decree dated 02.07.2021. Hence present Second Appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant assails, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below by submitting that the learned Courts bel not appreciated the fact that the property in dispute was not owned by his father, but was in actual fact purchased by mother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 executed in her favour by Laxmi Narain. Thus, Ramji Lal father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the Will dated 14.08.2000 in favour of the defendant/ respondent No.1 in which he had relinquished the right of the property in favour of the defendant No.1. It is contended that while passing the impugned s and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the pleadings and the evidence, led by the plaintiff in support of his case from which it is proven that Ramji Lal had no authority to execute the It is further submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained also on account of the fact that the Courts below have wrongly concluded that there was a family settlement and arrangement arrived at between -2- in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff alleged that his father was it property as he was not owner of the same. Plaintiff had made several requests to defendant No.1 to get the property partitioned, but to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 13.12.2011. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the oral and document evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Rewari, had dismissed suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rewari vide judgement in decree dated 02.07.2021. Learned counsel for the appellant assails, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below by submitting that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the property in dispute was not owned by his father, but was in actual fact purchased by mother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 executed in her favour by Laxmi Narain. Thus, Ramji Lal father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the Will dated 14.08.2000 in favour of the defendant/ respondent No.1 in which he had relinquished the right of the property in favour of the defendant No.1. It is contended that while passing the impugned s and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the pleadings and the evidence, led by the plaintiff in support of his case from which it is proven that Ramji Lal had no authority to execute the er submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained also on account of the fact that the Courts below have wrongly concluded that there was a family settlement and arrangement arrived at between in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff alleged that his father was it property as he was not owner of the same. Plaintiff had made several requests to defendant No.1 to get the property Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Rewari, had dismissed suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rewari vide judgement in decree dated 02.07.2021. Learned counsel for the appellant assails, the impugned judgments ow have not appreciated the fact that the property in dispute was not owned by his father, but was in actual fact purchased by mother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 05.02.1990 executed in her favour by Laxmi Narain. Thus, Ramji Lal father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the Will dated 14.08.2000 in favour of the defendant/ respondent No.1 in which he had relinquished the right of the property in favour of the defendant No.1. It is contended that while passing the impugned s and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration the pleadings and the evidence, led by the plaintiff in support of his case from which it is proven that Ramji Lal had no authority to execute the er submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below cannot be sustained also on account of the fact that the Courts below have wrongly concluded that there was a family settlement and arrangement arrived at between TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-638-2022 (O&M) the family to maintain peace and h the said, finding is without any pleadings of the parties to this effect. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below wrongly came to the finding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under submitted that in the earlier suit the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the validity of Will executed by Sh. Ramji Lal in favour defendant no.1/respondent no. 1 and that is the separate remedy, hence the present suit for partiti order 2 rule 2. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside. 7. Per contra on behalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and have been passed after taking into account all the relevant facts, pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that Will dated 14.08.2000 was duly proved in accordance with law. present appeal. 8. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file and the record in minute detail. I appellant. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that father of the parties, namely, Ramji Lal was owner in possession of House No. 7010; whereas the present property in dispute is House No.6816. I Lal had executed a to the plaintiff, except for the shop constructed therein. The property in dispute had been given by Ramji Lal to his other son i.e, def 2022 (O&M) the family to maintain peace and harmony amongst the family. It is contended that the said, finding is without any pleadings of the parties to this effect. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below wrongly came to the finding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under submitted that in the earlier suit the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the validity of Will executed by Sh. Ramji Lal in favour defendant no.1/respondent no. 1 and that is the separate remedy, hence the present suit for partiti order 2 rule 2. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the respondents controverts submissions ehalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and have been passed after taking into account all the relevant facts, pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that Will dated 14.08.2000 ved in accordance with law. Accordingly, h No other argument has been raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file and the record in minute detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the A perusal of the record reveals that father of the parties, namely, Ramji Lal was owner in possession of House No. 7010; whereas the present property in dispute is House No.6816. It has come on record that deceased Ramji Lal had executed a Will dated 14.04.2003 vide which he had given House No.7010 to the plaintiff, except for the shop constructed therein. The property in dispute had been given by Ramji Lal to his other son i.e, def -3- armony amongst the family. It is contended that the said, finding is without any pleadings of the parties to this effect. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below wrongly came to the finding that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under order 2 rule 2 CPC. It is submitted that in the earlier suit the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the validity of Will executed by Sh. Ramji Lal in favour defendant no.1/respondent no. 1 and that is the separate remedy, hence the present suit for partition is not barred under order 2 rule 2. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside. , ld. Counsel for the respondents controverts submissions ehalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and have been passed after taking into account all the relevant facts, pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that Will dated 14.08.2000 Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the No other argument has been raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file and the record in find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the A perusal of the record reveals that father of the parties, namely, Ramji Lal was owner in possession of House No. 7010; whereas the present t has come on record that deceased Ramji vide which he had given House No.7010 to the plaintiff, except for the shop constructed therein. The property in dispute had been given by Ramji Lal to his other son i.e, defendant No.1. armony amongst the family. It is contended that It is further submitted that the learned Courts below wrongly came to order 2 rule 2 CPC. It is submitted that in the earlier suit the plaintiff/appellant has challenged the validity of Will executed by Sh. Ramji Lal in favour defendant no.1/respondent no. 1 and on is not barred under order 2 rule 2. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the , ld. Counsel for the respondents controverts submissions ehalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and have been passed after taking into account all the relevant facts, pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that Will dated 14.08.2000 dismissal of the No other argument has been raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file and the record in find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the A perusal of the record reveals that father of the parties, namely, Ramji Lal was owner in possession of House No. 7010; whereas the present t has come on record that deceased Ramji vide which he had given House No.7010 to the plaintiff, except for the shop constructed therein. The property in dispute had TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-638-2022 (O&M) 10. It has also come on record that the plaintiff had challenged the Will dated 14.04.2003 by way of a previous Civil Suit bearing No. CS as “Ramotar Vs. Subhash”, in which he had contended that his father had given the entire property bearing House No. 7010, including the shop constructed therein, to the plaintiff by way of an unregistered Will dated 14.04.2003. Admittedly, the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.5 of 2013, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DE and decree dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DF. In the said Suit and appeal, plaintiff had categorically pleaded and averred that defendant is owner in possession of property bearing House No. 6816 (presen deny the above said averment made by him in the previous Civil Suit No. 209 of 2005. Thus, plaintiff is now estopped by his own act and conduct to plead to the contrary, in view of the fact that plaintiff defendant over the suit property. However, now by filing the present suit plaintiff has set up a new case, claiming share in the property in dispute 11. It has also come on record that Ramji L including House No.7010 and House No.6816 in the presence of his wife, Smt. Swarajo Devi. From the above facts, it would appear that the said distribution had taken place on the basis of a consensus/settlement arrived at bet due to which Ramji Lal had given all ownership rights in the House no. 7010 to the plaintiff, except for the one shop constructed therein. 12. It has also come on record that after the said distribution/partition defendant No.1 had got site plan sanctioned from the concerned Municipal Corporation and had raised new construction over the House no. 6816 in about the year 2004, from his own funds. P in the said construction raised by defendant no.1 over the suit property, plaintiff 2022 (O&M) It has also come on record that the plaintiff had challenged the Will dated 14.04.2003 by way of a previous Civil Suit bearing No. CS Vs. Subhash”, in which he had contended that his father had given the property bearing House No. 7010, including the shop constructed therein, to the plaintiff by way of an unregistered Will dated 14.04.2003. Admittedly, the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.5 of also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DE and decree dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DF. In the said Suit and appeal, plaintiff had categorically pleaded and averred that defendant is owner in possession of property bearing House No. 6816 (present suit property in dispute). Plaintiff is unable to deny the above said averment made by him in the previous Civil Suit No. 209 of 2005. Thus, plaintiff is now estopped by his own act and conduct to plead to the contrary, in view of the fact that plaintiff has himself admitted the ownership of the defendant over the suit property. However, now by filing the present suit plaintiff has set up a new case, claiming share in the property in dispute It has also come on record that Ramji L including House No.7010 and House No.6816 in the presence of his wife, Smt. Swarajo Devi. From the above facts, it would appear that the said distribution had taken place on the basis of a consensus/settlement arrived at bet due to which Ramji Lal had given all ownership rights in the House no. 7010 to the plaintiff, except for the one shop constructed therein. It has also come on record that after the said distribution/partition defendant No.1 had got site plan sanctioned from the concerned Municipal Corporation and had raised new construction over the House no. 6816 in about the year 2004, from his own funds. Plaintiff has admitted in his cross in the said construction raised by defendant no.1 over the suit property, plaintiff -4- It has also come on record that the plaintiff had challenged the Will dated 14.04.2003 by way of a previous Civil Suit bearing No. CS-209-2005 titled Vs. Subhash”, in which he had contended that his father had given the property bearing House No. 7010, including the shop constructed therein, to the plaintiff by way of an unregistered Will dated 14.04.2003. Admittedly, the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.5 of also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DE and decree dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DF. In the said Suit and appeal, plaintiff had categorically pleaded and averred that defendant is owner in possession of property t suit property in dispute). Plaintiff is unable to deny the above said averment made by him in the previous Civil Suit No. 209 of 2005. Thus, plaintiff is now estopped by his own act and conduct to plead to the has himself admitted the ownership of the defendant over the suit property. However, now by filing the present suit plaintiff has set up a new case, claiming share in the property in dispute i.e House no.6816. It has also come on record that Ramji Lal had distributed his property including House No.7010 and House No.6816 in the presence of his wife, Smt. Swarajo Devi. From the above facts, it would appear that the said distribution had taken place on the basis of a consensus/settlement arrived at between the parties, due to which Ramji Lal had given all ownership rights in the House no. 7010 to the plaintiff, except for the one shop constructed therein. It has also come on record that after the said distribution/partition defendant No.1 had got site plan sanctioned from the concerned Municipal Corporation and had raised new construction over the House no. 6816 in about the laintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that in the said construction raised by defendant no.1 over the suit property, plaintiff It has also come on record that the plaintiff had challenged the Will 2005 titled Vs. Subhash”, in which he had contended that his father had given the property bearing House No. 7010, including the shop constructed therein, to the plaintiff by way of an unregistered Will dated 14.04.2003. Admittedly, the said suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.5 of also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DE and decree dated 14.01.2016 Ex.DF. In the said Suit and appeal, plaintiff had categorically pleaded and averred that defendant is owner in possession of property t suit property in dispute). Plaintiff is unable to deny the above said averment made by him in the previous Civil Suit No. 209 of 2005. Thus, plaintiff is now estopped by his own act and conduct to plead to the has himself admitted the ownership of the defendant over the suit property. However, now by filing the present suit plaintiff no.6816. al had distributed his property including House No.7010 and House No.6816 in the presence of his wife, Smt. Swarajo Devi. From the above facts, it would appear that the said distribution had ween the parties, due to which Ramji Lal had given all ownership rights in the House no. 7010 to the It has also come on record that after the said distribution/partition defendant No.1 had got site plan sanctioned from the concerned Municipal Corporation and had raised new construction over the House no. 6816 in about the examination that in the said construction raised by defendant no.1 over the suit property, plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-638-2022 (O&M) has not spent a single penny. Plaintiff has also admitted that while defendant No.1 was raising construction unable to explain that if the said construction was raised in the year 2004 or so, why was the present suit filed in the year 2011. The clear indication from the above would be that the present suit was filed unsuccessful in the previous suit. 13. It is also undisputed that the Electricity Connection/Meter on the suit property was installed by the defendant from his own funds; and he is the only one who is paying the electricity char 14. From the record, it has also been established that Ramji Lal had executed two Wills to fairly distribute his property amongst his sons in terms of the family settlement. Clearly, the said family settlement had been acted upon on the basis of the understanding arrived at between Ramji Lal, plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, no undue benefit has accrued to defendant No.1. 15. Lastly, suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule of CPC as plaintiff could have sought relief of partition in hi 2005, but he failed to do so. Thus, present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 16. Ld. counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. Consequently, the present regular se stands dismissed 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 19, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2022 (O&M) has not spent a single penny. Plaintiff has also admitted that while defendant No.1 was raising construction, plaintiff did not raise any objection. Plaintiff is also unable to explain that if the said construction was raised in the year 2004 or so, why was the present suit filed in the year 2011. The clear indication from the above would be that the present suit was filed unsuccessful in the previous suit. It is also undisputed that the Electricity Connection/Meter on the suit property was installed by the defendant from his own funds; and he is the only one who is paying the electricity charges. From the record, it has also been established that Ramji Lal had executed two Wills to fairly distribute his property amongst his sons in terms of the family settlement. Clearly, the said family settlement had been acted upon on the understanding arrived at between Ramji Lal, plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, no undue benefit has accrued to defendant No.1. Lastly, suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule of CPC as plaintiff could have sought relief of partition in hi 2005, but he failed to do so. Thus, present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Ld. counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. Consequently, the present regular se dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- has not spent a single penny. Plaintiff has also admitted that while defendant No.1 did not raise any objection. Plaintiff is also unable to explain that if the said construction was raised in the year 2004 or so, why was the present suit filed in the year 2011. The clear indication from the above would be that the present suit was filed as plaintiff had remained It is also undisputed that the Electricity Connection/Meter on the suit property was installed by the defendant from his own funds; and he is the only one From the record, it has also been established that Ramji Lal had executed two Wills to fairly distribute his property amongst his sons in terms of the family settlement. Clearly, the said family settlement had been acted upon on the understanding arrived at between Ramji Lal, plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, no undue benefit has accrued to defendant No.1. Lastly, suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule of CPC as plaintiff could have sought relief of partition in his previous Civil Suit 209 of 2005, but he failed to do so. Thus, present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Ld. counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and findings. Consequently, the present regular second appeal Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE has not spent a single penny. Plaintiff has also admitted that while defendant No.1 did not raise any objection. Plaintiff is also unable to explain that if the said construction was raised in the year 2004 or so, why was the present suit filed in the year 2011. The clear indication from the as plaintiff had remained It is also undisputed that the Electricity Connection/Meter on the suit property was installed by the defendant from his own funds; and he is the only one From the record, it has also been established that Ramji Lal had executed two Wills to fairly distribute his property amongst his sons in terms of the family settlement. Clearly, the said family settlement had been acted upon on the understanding arrived at between Ramji Lal, plaintiff and defendant Lastly, suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule of CPC as s previous Civil Suit 209 of 2005, but he failed to do so. Thus, present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 Ld. counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the cond appeal TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document