Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramesh Chander & Ors v. Kashmir Lal - RSA-1371-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1256 (28 February 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.1371 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 28, 2006.

Ramesh Chander and others .... Appellants Vs.

Kashmir Lal .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate

for the respondent.


The legal representatives of the plaintiff are in appeal. They have lost before the learned first appellate court.

The plaintiff Maya Bai daughter of Mangu Ram had filed a suit on May 28, 1998, challenging the decree dated March 14, 1992, suffered by Mangu Ram in favour of Kashmir Lal son of Kalu Ram, real brother of Mangu Ram. The aforesaid decree was challenged on the ground that the same was based upon a fraud, coercion and mis-representation and as such, was not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

At this stage, it may be noticed that Mangu Ram died on March 16, 1998 and during his life time, he had not challenged the aforesaid decree. It may also be noticed that at the time of passing the aforesaid decree, plaintiff Maya Bai daughter of Mangu Ram was already married and there was no other child of Mangu Ram.

Learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The R.S.A.No.1371 of 2005 : 2 :

matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that Mangu Ram had never challenged the aforesaid decree during his life time and further that the plaintiff had completely failed to prove that there was any fraud, coercion or mis-representation upon Mangu Ram when he had suffered the said decree in favour of Kashmir Lal. It has also been held that the decree in question was willingly and voluntarily suffered by Mangu Ram.

Learned first appellate court has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Jagdish and others v. Ram Karan and others, 2003(1) PLJ 343 and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh, 2002(1) PLJ 59, to hold that decree in question was legal and valid and can not be questioned by plaintiff.

Consequently, appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts 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.


February 28, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


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


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 |

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