Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

IQBAL KAUR & ORS versus JASMAT SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Iqbal Kaur & Ors v. Jasmat Singh & Ors - RSA-1163-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5225 (4 August 2006)

RSA No. 1163 of 2006 - 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 1163 of 2006

Date of decision : 17.8.2006.

...

Parties Name

Iqbal Kaur and others

................ appellants.

vs.

Jasmat Singh and others

.................Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal Present: Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

...

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

As per the version of the appellants, the suit land was in their possession. Kahan Singh and Falel Singh, Ranjeet Singh son of Kahan Singh and Sewai Singh son of Falel Singh were owners of this land. They had mortgaged it with Paramjeet Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Jasbir Singh. Since the land was not redeemed by the original owners, therefore Paramjeet Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Jasbir Singh became the owners. They executed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellants on 8.11.1977 to sell this land @ Rs.2,500/- per acre.

Rs. 6,000/- were received as the earnest money. They further received a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 19.4.1982. Paramjeet Singh, Jagdeep Singh RSA No. 1163 of 2006 - 2-

and Jasbir Singh were to get the declaratory decree about their ownership and thereafter, the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the appellants. They got the declaratory decree in their favour on 7.1.1993 but they did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants. Hence, the appellants filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It was also pleaded that the appellants were dispossessed illegally and forcibly by the owners on 15.8.2001. Hence, possession was also sought alongwith decree for specific performance.

The respondents contested the case. Legal objections were pleaded. It was also denied if they had executed any agreement of sale in favour of the appellants.

Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. Besides other findings, the learned trial Court also held that the appellants have failed to prove the execution of agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977 or if the appellants had ever paid the amount of Rs.12,000/- vide receipt dated 19.4.1982. The execution of this receipt was also not proved. Accordingly, the suit of the appellants was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2002.

The appellants filed the appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court decided some of the issues in favour of the appellants by reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court. However, learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the finding of fact that the appellants had failed to prove the execution of the agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977 or the execution of the receipt dated 19.4.1982 by the respondents in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal was RSA No. 1163 of 2006 - 3-

dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005.

Hence, the present appeal.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Lower Appellate Court has reversed some of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It was also submitted that since the attesting witnesses of the agreement of sale had died, therefore, the said agreement was proved by examining the son of the scribe of the agreement dated 8.11.1977.

These submissions have been considered. Both the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that the appellants had failed to prove the execution of the agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977 as well as the receipt dated 19.4.1982 by the respondents in favour of the appellants. If the attesting witnesses of the agreement of sale had died, the appellants could have examined some persons to prove the signatures/thumb impressions of the attesting witnesses on the agreement of sale. It will be of no gain to the appellants that some of the findings recorded by the trial Court have been reversed when the findings which are material have been upheld.

It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they were in possession of the suit land for which agreement of sale was executed in their favour by Paramjeet Singh and others. This submission has also no merits, because, even according to the appellants, they were in possession of the suit land even prior to the execution of the alleged agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977. Therefore, the appellants do not connect their possession RSA No. 1163 of 2006 - 4-

with the alleged agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977. Merely, because they were in possession of the suit land in some other capacity, does not prove the execution of the agreement of sale dated 8.11.1977 by the respondents in favour of the appellants. Even the execution of the receipt dated 19.4.1982 is not proved as held by the Courts below.

The learned Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact and this Court finds no reason to disturb such judgments which are detailed and well reasoned.

No merits. Dismissed.

( S.N.Aggarwal )

Judge

17.8.2006.

chug


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.