High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
MALAK SINGH & Ors. v. JASWANT SINGH & Ors. - RSA-1716-2004  RD-P&H 205 (25 October 2005)
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.
Jaswant Singh and Others.
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the
. . .
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 
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.
JANUARY 12, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.