Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESHWAR DASS & ORS versus DHARAM SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rameshwar Dass & Ors v. Dharam Singh & Ors - RSA-1498-1996 [2006] RD-P&H 1734 (16 March 2006)

R.S.A. No.1498 of 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 1498 of 1996

Date of decision: March 21,2006

Rameshwar Dass and others V. Dharam Singh and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viney Mittal

Present: Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, or the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

A sale deed was executed by Shri Rasalli on October 26,1990 in favour of the defendants with regard to 16 kanals17 marlas of land. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the co-sharers along with Smt. Rasalli and filed a suit for pre-emption.

The defendants contested the status of the plaintiffs as a co- sharers.It was claimed by them that the joint land had already been partitioned between the co-sharers, therefore, the plaintiffs could not claim any right of pre-emption.

The trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first appellate court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that an order of partition had been passed by the Assistant Collector on June 7,1993. The appeal against the aforesaid partition order had been dismissed by the appellate authority on August 25,1993. Even the sanad partition had been issued between the parties on September 1,1993. In these circumstances, it was held that much prior to the date of judgment of the trial court i.e.

January 20, 1995 the parties ceased to be co-sharers. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

R.S.A. No.1498 of 1996

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court 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.

March 21,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


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.