Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.JARNAIL KAUR & ORS versus RAGHBIR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Jarnail Kaur & Ors v. Raghbir Singh & Ors - RSA-1999-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 2803 (2 May 2006)

R.S.A. No.1999 of 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

R.S.A. No.1999 of 2003

Date of decision: April 3,2006

Smt.Jarnail Kaur and others V. Raghbir Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellants.

Shri Arun Palli,Advocate, for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.

The appellants are the legal representatives of plaintiff, Harcharan Singh, who has since dead. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for possession on February 28,1995. It was claimed by him that Nathu son of Chhajju was the owner of 49 bighas 19 biswas of land. An oral gift had been made by Nathu in favour of Harcharan Singh and a mutation dated June 22,1953 had been entered. Defendants No.1 and 2 and Harbhajan Singh had challenged the aforesaid gift deed and the said suit filed by the aforesaid defendants was decreed on June 27,1960 and the gift and the mutation in favour of Harcharan Singh was set aside. However, the said decree was never reflected in the revenue record. For the first time an entry in that regard was made on December 31,1980. Harbhajan Singh died and mutation of his inheritance was entered in favour of his widow, Sham Kaur. Sham Kaur suffered a decree dated April 16,1981 in favour of defendant No.3,Hardyal Singh. A mutation was also entered on the basis of the aforesaid decree.

Plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid mutation in favour of Sham Kaur and the decree dated April 16,1981.

The suit filed by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants.

Defendants maintained that Natha Singh had died and had executed a R.S.A. No.1999 of 2003 2

registered will dated June 7,1971 in favour of defendants. Sham Kaur had also died and had executed a will dated September 17,1990 in their favour.

Consequently, it was claimed by the defendants that the suit filed by Harcharan Singh was totally frivolous and not even maintainable in view of the earlier decree dated June 27,1960 against him.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that in view of the earlier decree dated June 27,1960, Harcharan Singh could not have claimed any rights on the basis of the earlier gift deed. It had also been held that Natha Singh executed a registered will dated June 7,1971 and another will had been executed by Sham Kaur on September 17,1990 in favour of the defendants. The courts below have also noticed that Harcharan Singh was adopted son of Dalip Singh and,therefore, could not have claimed any right in the property of Natha Singh. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, thus,dismissed by the learned trial court and an appeal field by him also failed before the learned appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by 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.

Dismissed.

April 3,2006 (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.