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


Dalip Singh & Ors v. Manjit Singh & Ors - RSA-4000-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1754 (17 March 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.4000 of 2005

Date of Decision : March 10, 2006.

Dalip Singh & others .... Appellants


Manjit Singh & others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate

for the appellants.

* * *


The plaintiffs are in appeal. They filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the sale deed dated December 22, 1999, executed by defendants no.4 and 5, in favour of defendants no.1, 2 and 3, qua the joint property, was illegal, bad and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. They also claimed permanent injunction against the aforesaid defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and not to raise any construction.

The facts, which emerge from the record, show that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be the co-sharers of the suit land along with the defendants. Defendants no.4 and 5 are also admitted to be the co- sharers along with the plaintiffs. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that since the aforesaid defendants were not in exclusive possession of the suit property in any specific khasra number, therefore, they could not have executed the sale deed in favour of defendants no.1 to 3, qua the specific khasra number.

R.S.A.No.4000 of 2005 : 2 :

Both the courts below have also held that the suit property was joint between the parties. The learned trial court has declined the declaration sought by the plaintiffs but has decreed the suit for permanent injunction to the limited extent that defendants have been restrained from raising any construction over the suit property. Suit of the plaintiffs, against the forcible possession was, however, rejected. Plaintiffs were not found to be in actual physical possession of any property.

The defendants as well as the plaintiffs, filed two separate appeals before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court also re-affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned first appellate court, as well.

Shri Y.M.Bhagirath, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- appellants has argued that since the defendants no.4 and 5 were not in actual physical possession of specific khasra number, therefore, sale deed executed by them, qua any such specific khasra number, was not binding upon the plaintiffs.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. Once defendants no.4 and 5 are admitted to be the co- sharers of the suit land, then any sale deed executed by them, even qua any specific khasra number, will be subject to ultimate partition between the parties and any such sale would be deemed to be qua the share of defendants no.4 and 5. The plaintiffs have their effective remedy of seeking partition.

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.