Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI SINGH versus RAM CHANDER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Singh v. Ram Chander - RSA-1903-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2801 (2 May 2006)

Regular Second Appeal No.1903 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 1903 of 2005

Date of decision: March 31,2006

Hari Singh V. Ram Chander

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,for the appellants.

Shri H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The defendants are in appeal.

A suit for possession by way of redemption and for declaration was filed by the plaintiff, Bhola Ram. He claimed that he is owner/mortgagee of the suit land which had been mortgaged with one Umrao. Umrao had died and the defendants were legal heirs of Umrao.

Consequently,the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to redeem the land in question on payment of the mortgage amount.

The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants claimed that there was no mortgage ever created by the plaintiff in favour of Umrao.

It was also claimed by the defendants that they were tenants over the suit land.

The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. He was held entitled to redeem the suit property on payment of Rs.5250/-.

An appeal was filed by the defendants. Learned first appellate court held that the defendants were mortgagees of some portion of the suit land but were not proved to be mortagees of remaining portion of the suit land i.e. khasras No.18/1 and 13/2. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was partly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the extent that he was entitled to redeem the suit land except the aforesaid khasra numbers on payment of Rs.5250/-

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity Regular Second Appeal No.1903 of 2005 2

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 31,2006 (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.