High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Nirmal Singh v. Surjit Kaur & Ors - RSA-1794-2005  RD-P&H 1704 (16 March 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.1794 of 2005
Date of Decision : March 09, 2006.
Nirmal Singh .... Appellant
Surjit Kaur and others .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
for the respondents.
* * *
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
Plaintiff has concurrently remained unsuccessful before the two courts below. He filed a suit for declaration that he is coparcenar in a property in question along with his father Kartar Singh (since dead) and the sale deed dated July 03, 1997, executed by him, in favour of defendant no.5, was illegal, bad and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the property in question was coparcenary in the hands of Kartar Singh and Kartar Singh was a man, who was addicted to bad habits and as such, the sale in question had been executed without any legal necessity. It was also claimed that Kartar Singh could not understand his good and bad because of his age.
Both the courts below have found it as a fact that the property R.S.A.No.1794 of 2005 : 2 :
in question was self-acquired property in the hands of Kartar Singh and therefore, Nirmal Singh-plaintiff could not claim any right in the suit property. It has further been held that the sale deed dated July 03, 1997, in favour of defendant no.5 was for legal necessity and for a valid consideration. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court and his appeal also failed before 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.
March 09, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.