JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Defendants Pritam Singh etc. having lost in both the Courts below have filed this second appeal. 2. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Rajinderpal Kaur who is sister of the defendants/appellants. Respondent-plaintiff filed suit alleging that she has purchased the suit property from Teja Singh (father of both the parties) vide registered sale deeds dated 30.10.1996 and 06.06.1997 and is accordingly owner thereof. Defendants are residing in portion thereof with her permission whereas in the remaining portion plaintiff’s father and sister are residing with her permission. On demand, the defendants refused to handover vacant possession of the suit property in their occupation. Accordingly plaintiff sought possession of the suit property. 3. The defendants in their written statement broadly denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that their father Teja Singh was not owner of the property. He had no right to alienate the same. Defendants are in possession of the property as owners. Defendants raised construction in the suit land and are residing there. Impugned sale deeds by Teja Singh in favour of plaintiff were without consideration and legal necessity. The suit property is ancestral property and could not be alienated without legal necessity and consideration. It was also pleaded that the suit property was purchased by the defendants. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff’s suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that even Teja Singh father of the parties admitted that defendants were jointly cultivating the land with him (Teja Singh) and therefore, suit property is joint Hindu family property of defendants and their father. Reference was made to paragraph 218 of Hindu Law by Mulla (21st Edition of the year 2010). 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. Defendants have nowhere pleaded that the suit property was purchased from joint Hindu family funds. On the contrary, the defendants have taken contradictory stands in the written statement. On the one hand, they pleaded that they themselves had purchased the suit property. On the other hand, defendants also pleaded that it is ancestral property of the defendants. Defendants have nowhere pleaded that the suit property was purchased from joint Hindu family funds. On the contrary, the defendants have taken contradictory stands in the written statement. On the one hand, they pleaded that they themselves had purchased the suit property. On the other hand, defendants also pleaded that it is ancestral property of the defendants. However, the plaintiff has proved that the suit property was purchased by Teja Singh who has sold the same to the plaintiff by way of two sale deeds pleaded by her. Consequently the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property, which is in occupation of the defendant, has been rightly decreed in favour of the plaintiff being owner thereof. The suit has been decreed partly regarding the said portion by excluding the portion which is in possession of the plaintiff’s father and sister. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no infirmity, much less perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments of the courts below. Concurrent finding of the Courts below to decree the suit of the plaintiff is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. On the contrary, in view of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------