MAHASBU RAM Vs. BHIKHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. He submits that as per the findings of both the learned Courts, the suit land stood partitioned during the consolidation proceedings, therefore, it ceased to be ancestral land and become the self acquired property of the co -sharers, each according to his share In brief, his submission is that once ancestral land is partitioned it ceases to be ancestral property in the hands of the co -sharers, and this is a substantial question of law which both the learned Courts failed to consider. He has also relied on a reported Judgment of the Henble apex Court in 5. P. S. Balasubramanyam v. Surnitayan, 1994 (1) Sim LJ 565, which has also been referred to in the Judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court.

(2.) The findings of both the learned lower Courts on this aspect of the case is that the partition of the estate of the original owner i. e. Baintu between his successors -in -interest as per their share was effected during the course of consolidation of holdings proceedings, and such a partition between the co -owners will have no effect on the ancestral nature of the land. This is basically a finding of fact, and no substantial question of law is involved. Moreover, as per the law relating to consolidation of holdings in H P. there is a specific bar to partition proceedings during the pen dency of consolidation of holdings operations in a revenue estate. There is nothing on the record to show that the partition of the joint holding in the present case, being ancestral property, took place at the instance of one or more co -sharers during consolidation proceedings. Consequently, there is no error of law or any mis -reading of the evidence, by both the learned lower Courts in the present case Thus, the ruling of the Honble apex Court is not applicable.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this Second Appeal and the same is dismissed alongwith the C. M. P. Appeal dismissed.