JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Fazilka whereby suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff has also been dismissed. 2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit. 3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts are to the effect that land measuring 136 kanals 14 marlas, as detailed in the head-note of plaint, is joint Hindu family, ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of defendant no.1 being karta of the joint Hindu family. It was pleaded that the plaintiff being a member of the joint Hindu family is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property as according to him, earlier his grand-father Jawahar Singh was the owner of the suit land and some land was allotted to him and other was purchased by him from the income of the allotted land. It was further pleaded that after partition of the country, suit land came in the hands of defendant no.1, father of the plaintiff, in lieu of the land left by Jawahar Singh in Pakistan as a result of which the suit land is ancestral coparcenary property of joint Hindu family of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant no.2 are sons of defendant no.1, who according to the plaintiff are equally entitled to inherit the movable and immovable properties in the hands of defendant no.1 as his legal heirs. It was further pleaded that out of total land mentioned in the head-note of plaint, land mesuring 91 kanals 12 marlas is in litigation as 6SA-1¼ units are mentioned as land measuring 30 kanals 11 marlas i.e. 1/3rd share of land measuring 91 kanals 12 marlas as described above in the head-note was declared as cancelled by the orders of Hon’ble Financial Commissioner (Renveue), Punjab, Chandigarh vide orders dated 24.12.2002. It was further pleaded that parties to the suit were earlier living jointly as joint Hindu family and defendant no.1 was managing the joint family of the parties as karta, but now plaintiff is residing separately as defendant no.1 is favouring defendant no.2 and his family. Defendant no.1 has no right to dispose of any part or portion of the ancestral coparcenary property, as there is no legal necessity for the same. However, defendant no.1 had sold 8 kanals of land to defendants no.3 and 4 and also alienated the land measuring 12 kanals 2 marlas to defendant no.2 for no reason, without any legal necessity and to deprive the plaintiff of his rights in the property. It was prayed that sale deed referred to above is liable to be set aside and the defendants having failed to admit the lawful claim of the plaintiff, suit was filed. 4. Upon notice, defendants put in appearance and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was denied that the suit land is joint Hindu family property. Defendant no.1 is not holding the said property as karta of the so-called joint Hindu family. Defendant no.1 has four daughters also. It was denied that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 are equally entitled to inherit the movable and immovable properties in the hands of defendant no.1. Other averments in plaint were denied. 5. Replication was filed controverting the stand taken in written statement and averments of the plaint were reiterated. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share of the land in dispute?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the sale deed dated 24.08.2000 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.3 and 4 is illegal, null and void?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 9. Whether the instant suit has been filed within the period of limitation?OPP 10. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of O 2 R. 2 CPC?OPD 11. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee?OPD 12. Whether the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of order 7 Rule 1(e) of the CPC?OPD 13. Relief.” 6. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, this regular second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to following substantial questions of law suggested in the grounds of appeal for consideration by this Court: (i) Whether the facts and evidence in impugned judgments and decrees under appeal of both the court need re-consideration? (ii) Whether sale deed dated 24.08.2000 is part of the ancestral property and is without any legal necessity? (iii) Whether Ex.P-7 plaint in suit filed by respondent no.1-Hira Singh, itself, prove the property as ancestral property? (iv) Whether there is violation of principle of natural justice? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the courts below have misread the evidence and findings of both the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel has further contended that there is sufficient evidence in the shape of admission of defendant no.1 showing the property to be joint Hindu coparcenary property and defendant no.1 being the karta of the joint Hindu family of which the plaintiff is one of the coparceners. 10. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 11. While returning findings on issues no.1 to 3, the Court of first instance has rightly held that since PW 2 has only proved the copy of jamabandi for the year 1961-62, there is only bald statement of plaintiff that suit land is ancestral coparcenary property which originally belonged to Jawahar Singh from whom it was inherited by Hira Singh, defendant no.1. It has also been rightly recorded that there is no document of title or even revenue record showing Jawahar Singh to be the owner of any part of the suit land. It has also been rightly recorded that in the wake of ownership of Hira Singh, defendant no.1 has been clearly reflected as owner in the revenue records right from the jamabandi for the year 1961-62 (Ex.P-3) proved by the plaintiff himself, the oral contentions of the plaintiff alleging the property to be ancestral and coparcenary property cannot be sustained. 12. While returning finding on issues no.5 to 8, the Court of first instance has rightly held that since the plaintiff could not prove that property in dispute is an ancestral coparcenary property and from jamabandi for the year 1961-62, it is clearly shown that land in dispute is owned by Hira Singh-defendant no.1, the plaintiff apparently has no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit and suit as framed by him is not maintainable. It has also been rightly held that neither any other heir of Jawhar Singh nor his own sisters have been impleaded as parties to the suit by the plaintiff which renders the suit apparently bad for non joinder of the parties. 13. While returning finding on issue no.9, the Court of first instance has rightly held that since the plaintiff remained unsuccessful in establishing the property to be ancestral coparcenary property, the provisions of Article 102 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied and suit was required to be filed within a period of three years. 14. The said findings as recorded by the Court of first instance have been rightly affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the said findings are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of the material evidence on record. Consequently, concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below do not warrant interference in regular second appeal. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, as alleged, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. 16. There is also an unexplained culpable delay of 409 days in filing the instant regular second appeal. Since the main case has been dismissed being devoid of merits, there is no need to pass detailed order regarding condonation of delay. No other point has been urged. 16. There is also an unexplained culpable delay of 409 days in filing the instant regular second appeal. Since the main case has been dismissed being devoid of merits, there is no need to pass detailed order regarding condonation of delay. No other point has been urged. Dismissed in limine being devoid of merit as well as time barred. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————