The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence, particularly revenue records, in determining the nature of the property as coparcenary and the distinction between joint property and coparcenary property.

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

1. This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff who remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below; in his suit for joint possession of the land measuring 6 Kanals 8 Marlas; detailed in the plaint; claiming the same to be the coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit.

2. For the convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as they were described in the original suit.

3. The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff/appellant herein had filed a suit for joint possession; averring therein that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the members of the joint hindu family and governed by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession and alienation. As per Hindu Law every coparcener has a right in the property by birth. No one can transfer or alienate any party of the joint hindu family property to some other person without the consent of the other coparceners or without legal necessity. However, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 executed sale deed dated 03.03.1987 in favour of defendant No. 1 qua the suit land in an unlawful manner and with intention of depriving the plaintiff of his valuable right. Hence prayer was made to declare the sale deed dated 03.03.1987 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 as null and void and for joint possession of the suit property.

4. On being put to notice defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statements. However, the averments in their written statements are similar; to the effect that there was no joint hindu family and the property in dispute was not the coparcenary property. The plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 were living separately since long and were having separate mess and residence. It was further claimed that being agriculturist of Punjab they are governed by the custom under which father remains absolute owner of the property and his heirs get the property only after his death; making them the absolute owners in the turn. It was further pleaded that the land in question was self-acquired property in the hands of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff had no concern therewith. Hence defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to alienate the suit land and they have rightly alienated the same for consideration.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the property in dispute is Hindu Joint family coparcenary property? OPP.

(2) Whether the sale deed executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 pertaining to suit land is liable to be set aside?OPP

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit land?OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct?OPD.

(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.

(7) Relief.”

Parties led their respective evidence.

6. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that the suit property was a coparcenary property. No evidence in the form of revenue record has been led on file to prove the character of the suit property to be coparcenary property. On the contrary, the father of the plaintiff; who has been examined as PW-1 in the suit and the plaintiff himself; who appeared as PW-3; has admitted that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were living separately for quite long time. Therefore, the stand of the plaintiff can not be believed that the property in dispute is the joint hindu family property and coparcenary property. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the lower Appellate Court.

8. Before the lower Appellate Court an application for leading additional evidence was moved which was allowed. Certain revenue record was ordered to be taken on record and rep