Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHABIR & ANR versus GURDEV SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MAHABIR & Anr v. GURDEV SINGH & Ors - RSA-2630-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 115 (12 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2630 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2006.

Parties Name

Mahabir and another

...APPELLANT

VERSUS

Gurdev Singh and others

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Gupta,

Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate,

for the respondents - caveators

JUDGMENT:

Appellants plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, wherein they laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1992, suffered by their father alleging that the property being ancestral in nature, their father was not competent to transfer the same by way of collusive decree in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, who are their nephews. Suit was decreed. Respondents succeeded in appeal. It is apparent from the records that the trial Court, by placing reliance upon excerpt Ex. PW4/A, came to a conclusion that the property measuring 68 Kanals was ancestral in the hands of father of the appellants. Appellate Court below opined that the finding to that extent was wrong as vide earlier judgment and decree Ex. D1 and Ex. D5, the property was partitioned. 1/4th

share each was given to the appellants and respondent No. 3 and 1/4th

share was kept by their father, as such it was his separate property and he was competent to transfer the same the way he liked.

This Court is of the view that the appellate Court below is justified to that extent. Judgment and decree Ex. D1 was produced in Court, after perusal of the same, it is revealed that the appellate Court below was right in observing that the coparcenary nature of the property had come to an end. It is further apparent from the judgment and decree Ex. D1 that as per allegations made by the appellants and respondent No. 3, in family settlement, 3/4th

share in the property in dispute was transferred to them by their father. Appellate Court below has also rightly held that respondents No. 2 and 3 being grand sons were having pre-existing rights in the said property, as such, it was not necessary to get the judgment and decree registered. Appellants have failed to prove on record that the decree in question was got executed by playing fraud upon their father Risala. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact. Dismissed.

January 24, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC Judge


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.