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


Sulakhan Singh v. Kashmir Singh & Ors - RSA-1724-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1702 (16 March 2006)


Case No. : C.M.No.618-C of 2006 &

C.M.No.4204-C of 2004 &

R.S.A.No.1724 of 2004

Date of Decision : March 10, 2006.

Sulakhan Singh .... Appellant


Kashmir Singh & others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.O.P.Gabba, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *


C.M.No.618-C of 2006 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated December 12, 2005, is recalled. The main appeal is restored back to its original number.

C.M.No.4204-C of 2004 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

R.S.A.No.1724 of 2004 :

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the controversy also.

The plaintiff Sulakhan Singh, having lost concurrently before C.M.No.618-C of 2006 & : 2 :

C.M.No.4204-C of 2004 &

R.S.A.No.1724 of 2004

the two courts below, has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

He filed a suit for declaration and possession along with plaintiffs no.2 to 4. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they are owners of the suit land measuring 20 kanals and their father had purchased the same about 30/40 years ago. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs had become the owners of the suit land. The defendant had no concern with the same but had entered into forcible possession thereof. A mutation was also got entered by the defendant, which was illegal and wrong.

The suit was contested by the defendant. He pleaded that the suit land was allotted to defendant by Rehabilitation Department. However, allotment was cancelled by the Managing Officer (mortgages), vide order dated December 28, 1960. Defendant filed an appeal against the said order.

Vide order dated August 10, 1970, the appellate authority quashed the order of cancellation. In the meantime, after the cancellation of the allotment of the defendant, the land had been sold in an open auction and it was purchased by Mangal Singh-predecessor and father of the plaitiffs.

Subsequently, vide order dated August 10, 1970, auction in favour of Mangal Singh was also set aside, when the appeal of the defendant was allowed. The sale price was ordered to be refunded to Mangal Singh. In pursuance of the abovesaid order, the possession of the land was also restored to the defendant by the Tehsildar (Sales) and since then, the defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit land as owner.

Both the courts below have found that the plaintiffs had no right/title in the suit property and the land in question, stood allotted to defendant Kashmir Singh and that the said defendant is in possession thereof as owner.

Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and their appeal also failed before the learned first appellate court.

C.M.No.618-C of 2006 & : 3 :

C.M.No.4204-C of 2004 &

R.S.A.No.1724 of 2004

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.


March 10, 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.