CHANDRO Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Execution Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissing the third party objections of the appellants.

(2.) As the paper book would reveal, Civil Suit No. 224 of 2013 for recovery of ?4,92,016, filed on 11/4/2013 by plaintiff Amit Kumar [decree holder - now respondent No.1] was decreed against Dinesh Kumar son of Ishwar Singh defendant [judgment debtor - now respondent No. 2], on 25/7/2014 by Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn., Charkhi Dadri. The two third party objectors [now appellants] are the mother and son respectively of the JD- Dinesh Kumar.

(3.) The aforesaid orders have been assailed by the third party objectors by way of present appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the settled proposition of law, a property becomes ancestral in the hands of a person, when it comes to him from his three male lineal ascendants by way of natural succession i.e. when he received the property from his father, father's father or father's father's father by way of natural succession. Learned counsel contends that in the present case, Ishwar, the father of the JD, was the son of Badlu Ram and said Badlu Ram was the son of Fusa. It was obligatory upon the decree holder to produce the record that Badlu had inherited the property of Fusa by way of natural succession but no such evidence was produced. It is further contended that even Ishwar i.e. the father of Judgment Debtor got the property by way of a consent decree dtd. 5/8/1995 and not by way of natural succession and therefore, in such circumstances, the property cannot be held to be ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of Ishwar, in which the JD had any birth right. It is contended further that with the passing of the consent decree in his favour, the property in the hands of Ishwar had become his self acquired property and had lost the character of Joint Hindu family coparcenary property. For this proposition, learned counsel has relied upon Mohinder Kaur versus Pargat Singh 2010(2) PLR 742.