L.N. Mittal, J.
C.M. No. 10259.C of 2010
1. Allowed as prayed for.
C.M. No. 10260.C of 2010
2. For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit of counsel for the appellant, delay of 192 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
C.M. No. 10261.C of 2010
3. Allowed as prayed.
R.S.A. No. 3505 of 2010
4. This is second appeal by Ram Kumar defendant No. 10 having lost in both the courts below.
5. Plaintiffs'' father Rulia Ram had sold ancestral land to defendant No. 9 Mohinder Pal vide registered sale deed dated 28.6.1955. The said sale was challenged on the ground of being without legal necessity and consideration. In first appeal in that case, the suit was decreed holding that the sale was not binding on reversionery rights of the plaintiffs of that suit. The said suit had been filed by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 herein (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) and defendant No. 10- appellant herein. After the death of Rulia Ram, the instant suit was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are sons of Rulia Ram. The plaintiffs sought possession of the suit land since Rulia Ram had died. Defendant No. 10 alleged that since he along with plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the earlier suit, therefore, he i.e. defendant No. 10 is also entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property.
6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2007 partly decreed the plaintiffs'' suit and negatived the claim of defendant 10- appellant. Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. Defendant No. 10 also preferred separate first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. Both the said appeals have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide common judgment dated 22.9.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 10 has preferred the instant second appeal.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that according to decree passed in earlier suit, defendant No. 10 - appellant is also entitled to 1/3rd share of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. In the earlier suit sale made by Rulia Ram was held to be not binding on the reversionery rights of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 10 herein. However, after the death of Rulia Ram, defendant No. 10 -appellant who is brother''s son of Rulia Ram could not inherit any share in the land of Rulia Ram and only plaintiffs inherited the land of Rulia Ram. Consequently all the plaintiffs became entitled to possession of the share of Rulia Ram being his heirs. Defendant No. 10 is not heir of Rulia Ram. On the other hand, defendant No. 10 has got the share of his own father Roshan Lal (brother of Rulia Ram) in the land in question. Consequently, claim of defendant No. 10 - appellant has been rightly negatived by the courts below.
9. In addition to the aforesaid, it is significant to notice that defendant No. 10 admittedly did not file any counter claim in the suit. For this added reason as well, no relief can be granted in the instant suit to defendant No. 10.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
