GURDIAL SINGH versus RAJPAL SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Gurdial Singh v. Rajpal Singh & Ors - RSA-2758-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 358 (24 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A.No.2758 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION:-14.2.2006

Gurdial Singh ......APPELLANT

VERSUS

Rajpal Singh and others .......RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with

Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

***

JUDGMENT

When notice of motion was issued on 26.7.2004, following order was passed by this Court:-

"The defendant is in appeal aggrieved

against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration for joint possession.

The grievance of the appellant is that in sale deed dated 5.5.1995, Exhibits P2 and P3 he had sold his share along with share in shamlat deh to the plaintiff whereas he has not purchased share in shamlat by virtue of registered sale deed.

Both the Courts have rightly found that it is not open to the appellant to dispute the conveyance of share in shamlat deh on the basis of recital in the deeds Exhibits P2 and P3.

However, the grievance of the appellant that in pursuance of a decree for joint possession, the Executing Court has issued warrants of possession of actual possession of property, seems to have some merit.

Notice of motion for 19.11.2004 limited to the question "whether in a decree of joint possession, actual physical possession of the share can be delivered."

Dispossession of the appellant in pursuance of the decree for joint possession shall remain stayed." Order referred to above clearly indicates that qua other points, appeal was dismissed however notice of motion was issued only on a limited question, as to whether in a decree of joint possession, actual physical possession of the share in land can be delivered or not. Shri Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents states that in their application before the executing Court, the respondents have made a request only for joint possession.

In view of this, this Court feels that grievance of the appellant stands redressed.

Appeal has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

At this stage, counsel for the appellant wants to argue the appeal afresh.

In view of order passed by this Court earlier on 26.7.2004, no liberty can be granted as prayed.

Dismissed.

February 14, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH)

poonam 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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.