IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1706 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.03.2025 Chameli Devi and others .....Appellants Vs. Bimla and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for declaraon, possession and permanent injuncon regarding property in dispute filed by the plainffs (appellants herein) was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram on 29.09.2017. Appeal filed by them was dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Addional District Judge, Gurugram on 31.01.2022. Against these concurrent findings, plainffs have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. To avoid confusion, the pares shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Suit property, which is a residenal house situated in Manohar Nagar, Pataudi Chowk, Gurugram, was once owned by Ram Sarup Banjara, who had two sons, namely, Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh. Ram Sarup had expired on 22.03.2000. Bhagwan Singh had expired on 14.05.2012 and plainffs are his legal heirs. Lal Singh had expired on 31.01.2002 and defendants are his legal heirs. 4. Plainffs claimed the suit property on the ground that Ram Sarup Banjara had divided the suit property in equal shares in favour of his two sons i.e. Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh by virtue of a wring dated 15.09.1985, as per which eastern poron shown by le<ers “CDEF” had fallen to the share of Lal Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the defendants; and remaining half poron shown by le<ers “ABCD” had fallen RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh to the share of Bhagwan Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the plainffs. It was claimed that Ram Sarup had also executed a Will/ Agreement dated 08.02.1991 to this effect. It was further claimed that Bhagwan Singh raised construcon on the poron “ABCD”. It was alleged that the poron in possession of Bhagwan Singh was lying locked and taking benefit of the absence of the plainffs, defendants illegally and unlawfully broke open the locks and took forcible possession thereof. With these allegaons, decree for declaraon, possession and permanent injuncon was sought. 5. Defendants opposed the claim by denying any paron; or Will of Ram Sarup as set up by the plainffs. According to them, Bhagwan Singh had been given a separate house by Ram Sarup, in which he used to reside with his family and in which plainffs are presently residing. Ram Sarup used to reside with Lal Singh and his family and had given the suit property to Lal Singh by suffering a decree dated 09.11.1995 passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Gurugram in Civil Suit tled “Lal Singh Vs. Ram Sarup”. Some construcon was raised by Ram Sarup in the said property and subsequently, further construcon was raised by Lal Singh, who had become owner thereof and with which plainffs have no concern. The decree dated 09.11.1995 was never challenged either by Ram Sarup or by Bhagwan Singh. With these submissions, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 6. AFer framing necessary issues and taking evidence produced by the pares, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 29.09.2017 and the Appellate Court affirmed the said findings, while dismissing the appeal of the plainffs- appellants on 31.01.2022. 7. Assailing the afore-said concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plainffs that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. Page No.2 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 8. It is not the case of the plainffs that suit property was ancestral in nature. Meaning thereby, suit property was self acquired in the hands of Ram Sarup Banjara. To claim half share in the suit property, plainffs have relied upon a wring dated 15.09.1985 and also a Will/ Agreement dated 08.02.1991. Both the Courts below have held that the same are not proved on record. In this regard, it will be relevant to refer to the observaons made by the First Appellate Court which are as below:- “11. This is not the claim of the plainffs that the suit property was ancestral property of Ram Sarup. To prove paron/division of the suit property and the Will, the plainffs are relying on a wring Ex. P2 (alleged paron deed dated 15.9.1985) and Ex. P3 (Ikrarnama dated 8.2.1991). Ex. P2 wring dated 15.09.1985 is on the le<er head of Mohalla Sudhar Sami, Manohar Nagar, Gurgaon which starts in the shape of a cerficate that Ramsarup has divided the suit property detailed in it between his two sons Lal Singh and Bhagwan Singh half and half. Eastern side of property is given to Lal Singh and Western side of property to Bhagwan Singh. But on the basis of Ex. P2, the plainffs cannot claim their right on the property because it is not duly proved. It is carbon copy, its original has not been produced. Furthermore, the plainff Chameli Devi has admi<ed in her cross examinaon that there is no such Sanstha (in the name of Mohalla Sudhar Samitri, Manohar Nagar, Gurgaon). PW2 Ishwar Singh, alleged writer of Ex.P2, deposed that Sudhar Samitri in the Mohalla was in existence only for 4-5 years. However, he is unable to tell the years of the existence of the society. He also admits that at the me of wring dated 15.02.1985 and 08.02.1991, no member or the President of the Sudhar Sami was present. He further admi<ed that the le<er head of the society remains in custody of member or President of the Society. He is not even aware who brought the le<er head. So this document Ex.P2 is of no help to the plainff. Page No.3 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 12. Ex. P3 is wri<en as 'Ikrarnama' (agreement) and in the end, it is referred as Will. This document allegedly executed by Ram Sarup also divides the suit property between two sons of Ramsarup. Ex.P3 imposes condion on Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/- (Rs. 200/- each) to Ram Sarup and also to share Bhat and Chhuchak . There is a hand wri<en note on the document Ex.P3 wherein Lal Singh had not agreed to the terms. Ex.P3 is not proved as a Will. The terms having not been agreed upon, if Ex.P3 is treated as an agreement, it appears that it was never acted upon.” 9. It is thus clear that original of wring Ex.P2, alleged to be paron deed dated 15.09.1985, was never produced before the Court and only the carbon copy thereof was produced. Courts also found that there was no Sanstha by the name of Mohalla Sudhar Sami and the scribe of the said document admi<ed that neither President nor any representave of the said Society was present at the me of wring the document and he was not aware as to who had brought this le<er. Similarly, it was found that Ex.P3, described as Ikrarnama i.e. Agreement and in the end of which it was referred as a Will, was purported to be executed by Ram Sarup, whereby certain condions were imposed by Ram Sarup regarding payment of maintenance but it was also not proved as a Will nor was ever acted upon. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants- plainffs could not point out any fault in the findings returned by the Courts below so as to held that Ex.P2 and P3 to be not proved. 11. Sll further, judgment and decree dated 09.11.1995 (Ex.D2 and Ex.D3) were placed on file by the defendants, as per which Ram Sarup Banjara had relinquished his rights regarding the property in dispute in favour of his son Lal Singh. PW1- Chameli Devi i.e. one of the plainffs candidly admi<ed that disputed house was transferred by Ram Sarup in favour of Lal Singh in 1995. Though she alleged forcible dispossession of plainffs from the suit property but Page No.4 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh failed to support this plea by way of any cogent evidence. No evidence was adduced to show that Ram Sarup during his lifeme, ever challenged the said decree dated 09.11.1995, though he expired on 22.03.2000. Similarly, Bhagwan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plainffs remained alive ll 14.05.2012 but never challenged the decree dated 09.11.1995 in favour of his brother Lal Singh as suffered by their father Ram Sarup. The suit was filed only on 05.10.2012 i.e. aFer the death of Bhagwan Singh. 11. In the afore-said facts and circumstances, Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plainffs did not have any right, tle or interest in the suit property and so rightly dismissed the suit. This Court does not find any scope to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence on record. There is neither any illegality or any perversity in the findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. 12. Dismissed. March 05 , 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.5 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.03.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh