RSA-4326-2019 [121] Avtar Singh Ujjagar Sin Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] [2] original po respondents [3] sale deeds the same to [4] Singh is a birth. Defe necessity in cannot be s effect that t 019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR RSA-4326 Date of De r Singh and others versus ar Singh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate for **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs are in regular second For the convenience, parties h nal positions in the civil suit, i.e. the ndents as ‘defendants”. Plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking deeds executed by their father-defend ame to be illegal, null and void and no As per the plaintiffs, property is a coparcenary property, in which . Defendant No.1 having sold the sam ssity in favour of defendant Nos.2 to ot be sustained in the law. Plaintiffs t that they are owners to the extent of ¾ OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 4326-2019 (O&M) of Decision : 27.11.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ate for the appellants. econd appeal. rties hereinafter are referred to by the the appellants as ‘plaintiffs’ and eking decree of declaration qua variou efendant No.1/Ujjagar Singh, claimin and not binding on their rights. perty in dispute in the hands of Ujjag which, the plaintiffs have ¾ share b the same without there being any leg s.2 to 10. The sale deeds are bad an intiffs thus, claimed declaration to th nt of ¾ share in the suit land. 1 by their and the various laiming Ujjagar hare by ny legal bad and n to the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4326-2019 [5] holding tha of Ujjagar the name allotment w Majra as cl [6] recorded by was owned Ujjagar Sin nature, he necessity. [7] carefully go [8] regarding t ancestral o dismiss the the land is without any that they he in the pres defendant N purchased 9 Village Fat 019 (O&M) Both the Courts below rejec ing that they failed to prove the ancestr jjagar Singh. Though, it has been pro ame of Ujjagar Singh, but the plai ment was in lieu of ancestral property a as claimed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the app ded by the Courts below, claiming tha owned by their predecessors Amra/K ar Singh. Thus, land in the hands of , he had no authority to alienate the s ssity. I have heard learned couns ully gone through records of the case. In the considered opinion o ding the property in the hands of def stral or not is ignored, the testimon the present appeal. Plaintiffs cann and is ancestral. It also needs to be out any legal necessity. Even though they held enquiry prior to purchase of e present case, plaintiff himself ha dant No.1 after selling land measuring hased 9.5 acres of land in Village Bh Fatehullapur, the other chunk of rejected the claim of the plaintiff ancestral nature of property in the hand en proved that the land was allotted e plaintiffs failed to prove that suc perty left by the family in Village Sai appellants has assailed the finding ing that the land in Village Saini Maj mra/Kalu. The same was inherited b nds of Ujjagar Singh being ancestral e the same without there being any leg counsel for the appellants and hav case. ion of this Court, even if the issu of defendant No.1-Ujjagar Singh bein stimony of the plaintiffs is enough fs cannot succeed merely claiming th s to be held that the sale of land wa though it was for the vendees to prov ase of land regarding legal necessity b lf has admitted in his testimony th asuring 26 kanals in Village Desu Maj hadson. Similarly, land situated nk of 10 kanals 10 marlas was sold 2 laintiffs, e hands lotted in such ge Saini findings i Majra rited by estral in ny legal d have issue being ough to ing that nd was to prove ssity but ny that ajra uated in sold to RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4326-2019 purchase f that the lan produce is sale of land property is [9] any eviden below that this Court i [10] after correc [11] passed by t [12] disposed of 27.11.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 019 (O&M) hase further 4.5 acres of land near V the land purchased by his father near uce is good. Accordingly, the Courts of land by defendant No.1 de hors the erty is an act of good management. Learned counsel for the appell evidence that has gone unnoticed or that can breed question of law warra ourt in second appeal. Pure findings of facts have be correctly appreciating the evidence on Finding no reason to interfere d by the Courts below. The present ap All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Village Bhadson. He has admitte near Village Bhadson is fertile and th Courts below have rightly held that th the fact of it being his self acquire appellants has not been able to point o ed or has been misread by the Cour warranting interference at the hands o ave been recorded by the Courts below nce on record. terfere in the well reasoned judgmen sent appeal is ordered to be dismissed neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 dmitted and the that the acquired oint out Courts ands of s below, dgments issed. stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.12.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document