High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naginder Singh & Ors v. Darshan Singh & Ors - RSA-3021-2004  RD-P&H 430 (31 January 2006)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 3021 of 2004
DATE OF DECISION: February 14, 2006.
Naginder Singh and others
Darshan Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Inderjit Singh Brar,
Advocate, for the appellant.
Harnam Kaur, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she be declared as owner and in joint possession along with appellants and other co-sharers in the land, description of which was given by her in the plaint. She also laid challenge to the judgment and decree dated February 27, 1993, allegedly suffered by her in favour of the appellants. Her suit was decreed.
Appellants failed in appeal. Both the Courts below have found it as a matter of fact that the judgment and decree, on the basis of which claim of Harnam Kaur was resisted by the appellants, was a result of a fraud. It has been said so, by placing reliance upon report made by the Finger Print Expert, who has categorically stated that the tumb-impression, allegedly put by said Smt. Harnam Kaur, in the earlier suit, did not tally with her standard thumb-impression. It has also come on record that instead of Smt. Harnam Kaur, some one else has put in appearance, before the Court, when the judgment and decree were passed. Findings given by the Courts below are perfectly justified and are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. No case is made out for interference as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments. Dismissed.
February 14, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.