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


Kamalbir Singh v. Jagir Singh & Ors - RSA-4671-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1298 (1 March 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.4671 of 2003

Date of Decision : February 23, 2006.

Kamalbir Singh .... Appellant


Jagir Singh and others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate

for the respondents.


This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. R.S.A.No.4656 of 2003 and R.S.A.No.4671 of 2003 as the plaintiff-appellant is the same in both these appeals. Both the appeals have arisen out of suits filed by him challenging the sale deeds executed by his father Rajbir Singh. For the sake of convenience, facts are borrowed from R.S.A.No.4656 of 2003.

The plaintiff has remained concurrently unsuccessful in his challenge to the sale deed dated May 16, 1995 executed by Rajbir Singh, his father in favour of defendants no.1 to 4. Plaintiff claimed that Rajbir Singh was a man of bad habits and was an addict. It was claimed that the property in hands of Rajbir Singh was ancestral and coparcenary property and had been sold by him without any legal necessity and without any consideration.

The learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the property in question was ancestral in the hands of Rajbir Singh and it was further held that Rajbir Singh had sold the suit property for a valid consideration and for legal necessity.

R.S.A.No.4671 of 2003 : 2 :

An appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence.

The learned first appellate court, on such re-appreciation, found that the property in the hands of Rajbir Singh was not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property and had been sold for a valid consideration by him, in favour of defendants no.1 to 4. It was further held that in any case the property had been sold for legal necessity. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court.

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 23, 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.