JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Appellant-Gurcharan Singh has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of dismissal of suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking a decree of declaration qua his half share in the property succeeded from his father Chanan Singh-defendant No.2.

2. Appellant (herein referred as 'plaintiff') pleaded in the suit that the property detailed in the headnote of the plaint is the ancestral and coparcenary property, which was inherited from their fore-fathers. In the oral family settlement dated 20.10.2013, defendant No.2 (father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1) gave the land to the extent of 1/2 share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal shares. Thus, now being in the joint possession of the suit land, he is entitled for 1/2 of the share.

3. In the written statement filed by defendants, it is pleaded that the defendant No.2 is the owner in possession of the property in dispute and plaintiff has no right, title or concern with the same in any manner. The suit property is claimed to be self acquired property of defendant No.2. It is also pleaded that plaintiff is residing separately from the defendants from the last about twenty four years. Being absolute owner in possession of the property, defendant No.2 has claimed his all the rights to deal with the same in the manner he wishes.

4. It is further pleaded that defendant No.2 is a small farmer and he nourished and provided better education facilities to the plaintiff by spending huge amount as per his financial capacity and by doing hard work and also got performed the marriage of the plaintiff and got employed the plaintiff as Secretary in the Cooperative Societies with a hope that plaintiff will become shelter for defendant No.2. However, due to the strained relations with defendant No.2, now he started claiming half of the share in property, without there being any basis with him.

5. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, facts stated in the plaint were reiterated and thereafter, learned trial Court framed following six issues.

Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for? OPP

Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

Issue No.3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD

Issue No.4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

Issue No.5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD

Issue No.6. Relief

Qua issue No.1, a categoric finding is recorded by learned trial Court that from the documents produced by the plaintiff i.e. Jamabandi's Ex.P1 to P4, there is nothing proved that the land in question is ancestral and coparcenary.

6. Except the said Jamabandis, there was no other documentary evidence by which the defects pleaded by the plaintiff could get any strength.

7. On the contrary, Court held that from the photocopies of the sale deeds mark A & mark C and certified copy of mutation No.461 (Ex.D3), defendant No.2-Chanan Singh succeeded the property of Rattan Singh through registered Will dated 02.06.1993. It was concluded that the property was exclusively owned by defendant No.2 and cannot be declared as coparcenary or ancestral property in any manner, thus, Court held that the property in the hands of defendant No.2 is self acquired property.

8. So far as question of oral family settlement dated 20.10.2013 is concerned, plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to establish the pleadings. Even the Court has taken note of the admissions made by the plaintiff, wherein he has clearly admitted the facts mentioned in the written statement that he got