High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jaswinder Singg v. Maya Devi & Ors - RSA-4151-2005  RD-P&H 1658 (16 March 2006)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4151 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: March 21, 2006
Maya Devi and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Rattan,
Advocate, for the appellant.
CM No. 11127-C of 2005
This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 6 days in refiling the appeal. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM No. 11125-C of 2005
This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing the appeal.
Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed subject to just exceptions and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A. No. 4151 of 2005
Appellant plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming 2/9th share in the land, description of which was given by him in his plaint. It was his assertion that the property in dispute was joint. Being coparcenary in nature, he became entitled to inherit his share by birth and his father had committed a mistake by selling his share also on October 20, 1989. It was prayer of the appellant that the sale deed to the extent of his share be set aside. His suit was dismissed. However, in appeal, finding on issue No. 1 was reversed and it was held by the appellate Court below that the property in dispute was joint being coparcenary in nature. However, it was further observed that the property was rightly sold by father of the appellant for legal necessity. It has been noticed by the appellate Court that after sale of the property, house was constructed by father of the appellant, wherein, at present, the appellant is residing along with his father. An attempt has been made to show that the house was constructed by getting money from maternal uncles of the appellant. However, to that extent, there is no proof on record. This Court feels that the judgment and decree passed are perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, there is no necessity to pass any order on C.M. No. 11126-C of 2005 seeking permission to file the present appeal as an indigent person.
March 21, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.