Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MALAK SINGH & ORS. versus JASWANT SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MALAK SINGH & Ors. v. JASWANT SINGH & Ors. - RSA-1716-2004 [2005] RD-P&H 205 (25 October 2005)

R.S.A. NO.1716 OF 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1716 OF 2004

DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12, 2006

Malak Singh and Others.

.....APPELLANT

VERSUS

Jaswant Singh and Others.

.....RESPONDENT

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the

respondents.

. . .

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are in appeal. They filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction by which Decree dated March 27, 1989 suffered by Dalip Singh in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 was challenged. It was claimed that the property covered by the decree was ancestral property and therefore Dalip Singh was not entitled to suffer the consent decree.

The suit was contested by the defendants including Dalip Singh. It was claimed that the suit property was self acquired property of Dalip Singh and not ancestral in nature. It was also claimed that Dalip Singh suffered the aforesaid decree voluntarily regarding his self acquired property.

R.S.A. NO.1716 OF 2004 [2]

The learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and found that there was no evidence available on the record to hold that the property was ancestral property in the hands of Dalip Singh. On the other hand, the same was held to be self acquired property. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the decree suffered by Dalip Singh qua his self acquired property. It was also held to be legal and valid having been suffered by Dalip Singh in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. It was also held that the decree dated March 27, 1989 had been challenged by the plaintiffs by filing the present suit on September 25, 1993 i.e. after the expiry of limitation. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

(VINEY MITTAL)

JANUARY 12, 2006 JUDGE

avin


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.