Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOHAN LAL versus PURAN CHAND

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sohan Lal v. Puran Chand - RSA-2859-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1315 (1 March 2006)

R.S.A. NO.2859 OF 2004 (O & M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2859 OF 2004 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 17, 2006

Sohan Lal son of Lakha Ram, resident of Village & P.O. Jandu Singha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Puran Chand son of Bhola Ram, resident of Village & P.O. Jandu Singha, Tehsil and District Jalandhar and Others.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT:- Mohammad Salim, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Mr. Gurnam Singh Nagra, Advocate, for the Respondents.

. . .

JUDGMENT

Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two Courts below in his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property.

It was claimed by the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property from one Faquir Singh on March 29, 1979 for Rs.7,500/- Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff. It was claimed that defendant No.5 had obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on some blank papers and fabricated a sale deed dated September 14, 1993.

The plaintiff claimed that he had never executed the aforesaid sale deed.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the sale deed dated September 14, 1993, Ex.D1 was executed by the plaintiff in R.S.A. NO.2859 OF 2004 (O & M) [2]

favour of defendant No.5 for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- and the consideration was also paid before the Sub Registrar. In view of the aforesaid fact and on appreciation of the entire evidence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed by him also failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by 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.

Dismissed.

(VINEY MITTAL)

FEBRUARY 17, 2006 JUDGE

avin


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.