RSA-145-2022 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 RSA-145-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Kesar Singh ...Appellant(s) Vs. Nirmala Devi and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Second Appeal has been )led by the plain+, against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit )led by the appellant for joint possession as owner of the suit land, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. The case as pleaded in the plaint is that the plain+, and defendants No. 1 to 3 are related and form Joint Hindu Family. Therefore, plain+, has right in the suit land. However, the defendants were depriving him of said right. Accordingly, plain+, had )led instant suit on 22.12.2010. 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala had dismissed the suit of the plain+,. The appeal )led by the plain+, was dismissed by the learned addi+onal District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021. Hence, present Second Appeal by the plain+,. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.07 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-145-2022 (O&M) - 2 - 4. It is inter alia submi9ed by learned counsel for the appellant/plain+, that the learned Courts below were in error in non- sui+ng the appellant as they failed to appreciate that defendant No.3 had inherited the suit property from his father Puran Singh. As such, being a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family, plain+, had got a birth right in the suit land. It is contended that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that ancestral/coparcenary property will not lose its nature and character in the hands of defendant No.3 merely because it was inherited by him through Will from his father. The Courts below failed to appreciate that plain+, cannot be divested of his birth right in the ancestral property by su,ering a Consent Decree by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Moreover, defendant No.1 being daughter-in-law of defendant No.3 had no pre-exis+ng right in the property in ques+on. As such, Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P4) required compulsory registra+on. However, this fact has not been considered by both the Courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both the Courts below did not consider that mere taking of some land by way of Relinquishment Deed dated 25.05.2002 (Ex.D1) from Defendant No. 2, does not take away the right of the Plain+, as a coparcener in the ancestral property, rather it gives strength to the genuineness/legality of the claim of the Plain+,. As such the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.07 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-145-2022 (O&M) - 3 - 6. It is further submi9ed by learned counsel for the appellant that it is well se9led that Consent Decree cannot be permi9ed regarding ancestral land by ignoring the rights of any coparcener. Whereas the Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P-4) was passed in favour of Defendants without impleading the Plain+, as a party. 7. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside. 8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant/plain+,. I have heard ld. counsel and perused case )le in detail. I )nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 9. First and foremost, the appellant has failed to establish ancestral nature of the suit property. The record reveals that as per Muta+on No. 439 Ex.P6 Nasib Singh/defendant No.3/father of the plain+,/appellant had inherited the property by virtue of registered Will No. 115/1 dated 05.01.1976. Clearly therefore, suit property was not ancestral in nature. Therefore, plain+, can claim no birthright in the suit property. Consequen+ally, the Consent judgment and decree dated 03.03.1989 Ex.P4 was legal. 10. Even otherwise, suit of the plain+, was hopelessly +me barred. By way of instant suit, the plain+, has laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1989 only in the year 2010. No valid explana+on has been given by the plain+, for this delay. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.07 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-145-2022 (O&M) - 4 - 11. Further plain+, himself as PW1 has admi9ed in his cross- examina+on that suit land was sold by Ishar Singh and Nirmala Devi to defendants No. 4 and 5 and that he has no concern with the same. Nor has plain+, challenged the Sale Deed executed in their favour. 12. It is also to be appreciated that on the one hand, the plain+, is challenging the right of the defendants to alienate the suit property; on the other hand, plain+, himself has admi9ed entry in the Relinquishment Deed dated 25.05.2002 Ex.D1. It is further evident from the record that as per Muta+on Ex.P7, it is recorded that Nasib Singh had entered into par++on with his uncle Pritam son of Massaudi and the suit property had been par++oned. Thus, par++on had been approved and Ta+ma had been e,ected. For this reason, as well, suit property became self acquired property of the respec+ve share holders. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and )ndings. 14. In view of the above, I )nd no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending applica+ons, if any, stand disposed of. 06.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.11.07 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document