Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM MEHAR versus KARAN SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Mehar v. Karan Singh & Ors - RSA-4768-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 433 (31 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4768 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: February 14, 2006.

Parties Name

Ram Mehar

...APPELLANT

VERSUS

Karan Singh and others ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. R.K.Gupta,

Advocate, for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

Respondents plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated October 11, 1996, with respect to the land, description of which was given by him in his plaint. It was his case that after execution of the agreement, referred to above, and on receipt of sale consideration, to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/-, he was put in possession and thereafter, when appellant defendant failed to execute the sale deed, he was compelled to file this suit. His suit was decreed. Appellant failed in appeal. Before this Court, an attempt has been made to say that the agreement to sell was never executed. However, perusal of evidence on record reveals that before filing the suit, two notices were sent to the appellant by the respondent with a request that consequent to the agreement to sell, as referred to above, sale deed be executed. To those notices, no reply was given and no action what-so-ever was initiated by the appellant against the respondent. Furthermore, only one day after the date of the execution of the agreement to sell, vide receipt Ex. D2, appellant had repaid the loan amount raised by him. From where that amount had come, no explanation has been furnished before the Court below. Contention of counsel for the appellant that in fact it was a lease transaction, being beyond pleadings and also in view of facts referred to above, is not believable. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact as no substantial question of law has been raised during arguments. Dismissed.

February 14, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC 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.