S. No.130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.853 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.03.2025 Sa+sh Kumar (since deceased) through LRs .....Appellants Vs. Kusum and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Suit for declaraon and permanent injuncon filed by plainffs- Kusum, Suman and Kavita (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) regarding the property in dispute was decreed by the trial Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pehowa vide judgment dated 28.05.2018 and the said judgment has been upheld by the First Appellate Court on 10.12.2024, while dismissing the appeal of contesng defendant No.1- Sash Kumar through his LRs (appellants herein). Now said defendant No.1 through his LRs has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2.1 Admi5edly, suit property was owned by Gajbir Singh, who had purchased it vide sale deed dated 30.10.1985, regarding which Mutaon No.2655 was sanconed. Said Gajbir Singh expired intestate on 12.08.2015. Defendant No.1- Sash Kumar is the only son, whereas three plainffs & defendant No.2 to RENU 2025.03.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 5 are seven daughters of Gajbir. Their mother i.e. wife of Gajbir had already expired. 2.2 Plainffs claimed 3/8th share i.e. 1/8th share each in the suit property on the basis of natural succession. On the other hand, defendant No.1, who contested the suit, claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property by contending that a?er the Bhog Ceremony of his father, oral family se5lement had been arrived amongst the pares on 26.08.2015 at Pehowa, in which house in dispute was allo5ed to defendant No.1, inasmuch as all his sisters are married and well se5led and in this way, defendant No.1 had become absolute owner in possession of the house. 2.3 Said defendant No.1 also filed a counter claim to declare him as absolute owner of the house in dispute. 2.4 Defendants No.2 to 5 i.e. four sisters of plainffs & defendant No.1, admi5ed the claim of defendant No.1. 3. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. Trial Court came to the conclusion that family se5lement relied by defendant No.1 was not proved and as Gajbir had died intestate, so plainffs were entled to be declared as joint owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was restrained from alienang or creang any third party interest in the suit property except to the extent of his 1/8th share. 4. The Appellate Court has upheld the above-said findings, while dismissing the appeal of the contesng defendant No.1. 5. Assailing the afore-said concurrent findings of the Courts below, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that family se5lement relied by the defendant No.1 was well proved on record on account of admission of defendants No.2 to 5. DW2 Digamber and DW3 Rishi Pal had also supported the case of the defendant in this regard and merely because the oral family RENU 2025.03.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh se5lement was not reflected in any wri5en document, the same could not be disbelieved. Sll further, it is contended by learned counsel that proper issues on the counter-claim of the appellant – defendant No.1 were not framed. Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the judgments of the Courts below. 6. A?er considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and going through his wri5en submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the same. 7. This is not in dispute that Gajbir Singh, the father of the pares was the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased it vide sale deed dated 30.10.1985. It is also undisputed that said Gajbir Singh died on 12.08.2015 intestate. Assuming for the sake of arguments that some oral family se5lement had taken place between the pares on 26.08.2015, as is contended by defendant No.1 – appellant, it is only by virtue of that se5lement that defendant No.1 claims to have become exclusive owner of the suit property. Since defendant No.1 did not have any pre-exisng right in the suit property, which was the self-acquired property of Gajbir Singh, therefore, exclusive ownership of the suit property could not be conveyed in favour of defendant No.1 a?er the death of Gajbir, without any registered instrument. 8. It is the admi5ed posion that oral family se5lement as is claimed by defendant No.1 has not been converted into any document. As has been observed by the First Appellate Court, none of the plainffs & defendants No.2 to 5 executed any affidavit in favour of defendant No.1, acknowledging the family se5lement. There is nothing to show that any court decree was suffered. There is no evidence to show that family se5lement was reported to any authority and the instrument was got registered. In these circumstances, defendant No.1 cannot claim to have become exclusive owner of the suit property simply on the RENU 2025.03.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh basis of oral family se5lement, parcularly when he did not have any pre-exisng right in the suit property, which was self-acquired of his father – Gajbir Singh. 9. As far as contenon that proper issue on counter-claim were not framed, it is also found to be without substance, inasmuch as Issue No.5 has been specifically framed to the effect that as to whether defendant No.1 is entled to the declaraon that he is absolute owner in possession of the suit property as per family se5lement dated 26.08.2015, which took place between the pares. Issue No.6 is also framed to the effect as to whether the counter- claim of defendant No.1 is maintainable or not. Counsel for the appellant- defendant No.1 has failed to convince this Court as to which proper issue on the counter claim has not been framed. 10. On account of the afore-said discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact as recorded by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciaon of evidence on record. There being no illegality or perversity in the findings, so appeal is dismissed. March 19, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.03.20 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh