Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RURA RAM versus KRISHAN KUMAR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rura Ram v. Krishan Kumar - RSA-4114-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1153 (24 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4114 of 2005 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: March 7, 2006

Parties Name

Rura Ram

...APPELLANT

VERSUS

Krishan Kumar ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal,

Advocate, for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

CM No. 11039-C of 2005:

This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal.

Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in the application , it is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 4114 of 2005.

Appellant, claiming himself as owner of the property, description of which was given in his plaint, filed a suit for possession. It was his case that the property being ancestral, he was entitled to inherit the same, after the death of his father, in the year 1948. It was further stated in the plaint that respondent Har Piari was entitled to life estate only and was not competent to sell the property in dispute. Suit was dismissed. Appellant also failed in appeal. Courts below have noticed a fact that earlier also, the appellant had filed a suit regarding the property in dispute, which was dismissed on August 5, 1983, and the judgment and decree passed in that suit had become final. It has further been noticed that the property was mutated in the name of respondent No. 2 Smt. Har Piari in the year 1948. The appellant is not in possession of the same, as such his suit, having been filed in the year 1991 was barred by limitation. He has also failed to show any custom to prove that respondent No. 2 was entitled to a life estate only. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paras No. 16 to 20 of its judgment, no case is made out for interference, as no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.

March 07, 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.