1. Civil Appeal No.5258 of 2012 arises out of the impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed in R.S.A. No.2961 of 1984 and Civil Appeal No.5257 of 2012 arises out of the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 passed in the Review Application being no.74-C/2010 in the RSA No.2961 of 1984, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

2. The appellant – original plaintiff in both these appeals had filed the suit against the respondents – defendants initially for permanent injunction and subsequently claiming joint possession in respect of Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Date: 2024.03.11 14:54:05 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified the land in question. In the suit, he had claimed to be the adopted son of one Chhaju Ram, and pleaded that the land in question was an ancestral land and his adoptive father Chhaju Ram had no right to alienate the said land except for legal necessity. It was also pleaded that the said Chhaju Ram was drunkard and gambler and he had sold the said suit land in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without any legal necessity and without any consideration having been received, vide the sale deed dated 31.08.1979. The said suit was resisted by the respondents – defendants by filing their written statements separately.

3. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, had framed the issues particularly with regard to the issue whether the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1979 was for the estate and with consideration. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had proved to be the adopted son of the defendant No.1 and also held that the suit property was an ancestral property. It was further held that the father – Chhaju Ram had sold the suit property without any legal necessity and accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the present appellant – plaintiff.

4. The respondents – defendant Nos. 2 and 3 having filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, the same was dismissed. The said respondents having filed the Second Appeal before the High Court, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: -

(I) Whether the findings of the learned courts below, holding that the property in the hands of defendant No.1 was ancestral joint Hindu family property qua the plaintiff/respondent, is the outcome of misreading of evidence and contrary to law, therefore, not sustainable? (II) Whether in the absence of pleadings and evidence it could be held that the parties were governed by the custom and whether the finding in the previous suit in which the rights of the appellants were not decided could operate as res judicata?

5. The High Court having regard to the evidence on record and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties allowed the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the Appellate Court. The appellant – plaintiff being aggrieved by the same has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Manoj Swarup for the appellant submitted that the High Court had committed a gross error in setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below, by which it was held that the father of the appellant – Chhaju Ram had sold the suit property without any legal necessity, and that the sale deed was a sham transaction between Chhaju Ram and the present respondents – defendants.

He also placed heavy reliance on the decree passed on 31.01.1979 in the suit filed by the appellant (plaintiff) against his father challenging a gift deed executed in favour of one Gurcharan Singh. According to him, in the said suit, the gift deed was held to be illegal, and the appeal preferred by the said Gurcharan Singh was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 25.05.1981, and in the meantime the s