RSA No.2833 of 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.2833 of 2023 (O&M) Reserved on:26.03.2025 Pronounced on: 02.04.2025 Jarnail Singh .....Appellants Vs. Sampuran Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent- caveator. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plainffs- Jarnail Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh (now appellant and proforma respondents No.5 & 6) brought the suit against defendant Sampuran Kaur and others (contesng respondents herein) seeking paron of the suit property detailed in the plaint. They further assailed sale deed bearing Vasika No.3860 regarding 02 kanal 05 marlas of land executed by defendant No.1 in favour of her son – defendant No.2 and another sale deed bearing Vasika No.3861 regarding 01 kanal 11 marlas of land in favour of defendants No.3 and 4. Defendant No.1 is the mother of plainff No.1, whereas plainffs No.2 & 3 are the grandsons being the sons of another deceased son of defendant No.1. 2.1 According to plainffs, suit property was purchased by Shri Jagir Singh, the father of plainff No.1 in the name of defendant No.1: that a7er the death of Jagir Singh, family se8lement had been effected between the pares on 25.10.1997 and that the plainffs are entled to 5/104 share out of the total land. Plainffs submi8ed further that by breaching the family se8lement, defendant No.1 had executed the impugned sale deeds. Page No.1 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2833 of 2023 (O&M) 2.2 The defendants contested the suit by denying any family se8lement. They further denied that suit property was purchased by Jagir Singh in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 claimed to be exclusive owner of the suit property, which was her self-acquired property and that she had the right to sell, gi7 or exchange the same to any person, she wished. Objecon was also raised that suit was barred by limitaon. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. 2.4 Trial Court dismissed the suit by way of the judgment dated 15.12.2017. In the appeal filed by only one of the plainffs, namely, Jarnail Singh, he moved an applicaon under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producon of addional evidence, which was allowed by the Appellate Court. However, a7er hearing both the sides, the appeal was ulmately dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 27.07.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the afore-said concurrent findings, plainff No.1 - Jarnail Singh has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, contending that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. It is argued by learned counsel that defendant No.1 - Sampuran Kaur while entering the witness box had admi8ed the execuon of the family se8lement dated 25.10.1997 `Mark A', which was put as Ex.P.14. Besides, PW4 Jaspal, the a8esng to the agreement also proved the same. It is argued that in these circumstances, the suit was liable to be decreed and has been wrongly dismissed. 4. However, ld. counsel for the respondents by refung the above contenons, has defended the judgments passed by the Courts below submiHng that the same are based on proper appreciaon of evidence. 5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. Page No.2 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2833 of 2023 (O&M) 6. It is not in dispute that suit property was owned by defendant No.1 – Smt. Sampuran Kaur and so, it is her self-acquired property, as it was purchased by her. The contenon of the plainffs that the suit property was purchased by their father Jagir Singh in the name of Sampuran Singh, is not proved on record. Once it is so that defendant No.1 was the exclusive owner of the suit property, she was free to deal with it, the way she liked. 7. Plainff No.1 who is the son and plainffs No.2 & 3 who are the grandsons of defendant No.1 claim that a paron had been effected on 25.10.1997 and so they are entled for the land on which they had raised construcon. However, original of the said alleged family se8lement had never been brought on record. Its photocopy was produced in evidence as `Mark A' which was later on put as Ex.P14, when Sampuran also known as Purani admi8ed the same during her cross-examinaon. Plainffs also examined one of the a8esng witnesses, namely, Jaspal as PW4 who proved the same. 8. However, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly rejected the said document in the absence of producon of the original. No permission was ever sought by the plainffs from the trial Court to prove the said document by way of the secondary evidence. Apart from this, as noced by the First Appellate Court, the descripon of the property was not at all menoned in the said document Ex.P14. So much so, the document was unregistered. 9. Since the property in queson was self-acquired in the hands of defendant No.1- Smt. Sampuran Kaur, therefore, no rights could be created in favour of any of the pares without geHng the document registered. 10. As such, the Courts below have rightly rejected the alleged family se8lement relied by the plainffs. Defendant No.1 were the exclusive owner of the suit property, and therefore, the impugned sale deeds as executed by her either in favour of defendant No.2 or in favour of Page No.3 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2833 of 2023 (O&M) defendant Nos.3 and 4 cannot be held to be null and void for any reason. 11. On account of the afore-said discussion, it is held that there is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. April 02, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.4 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh