Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOM NATH & ORS versus KAUSHLYA DEVI & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Som Nath & Ors v. Kaushlya Devi & Anr - RSA-3232-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5359 (8 August 2006)

*****

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision : 24.8.2006.

Som Nath and others .... Appellants.

vs

Kaushlya Devi and another .... Respondents.

Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.Tribhawan Singla,Advocate,for the appellants.

Judgment.

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

In a suit for permanent injunction, the appellants claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land measuring 24 kanals, on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated 24.3.1988 executed in their favour by its owner, Hans Raj. It was further pleaded that mutation on the basis of sale-deed was also sanctioned in their favour. Inspite of that, the contesting respondent Kaushlya Devi had been threatening to dispossess them from the land, which led to the filing of suit.

Kaushlya Devi contested the suit, pleading that Hans Raj never owned the suit land. He had, however, forged a will of its previous owner Dropti Devi (mother of Kaushlya Devi), in his favour, in respect of the land and got a mutation sanctioned in his favour on the basis thereof. Kaushlya Devi, later on, contested the mutation which was set aside vide order of the Collector, Ex.D1. Inheritance of Dropti Devi was, then mutated in favour of all her legal heirs, including Kaushlya Devi. During the interregnum, the appellants, had, in connivance with Hans Raj, got a sale-deed prepared from Hans Raj in respect of the suit land, in their favour, and land had been mutated also, in their favour. This mutation was, later on, set aside on *****

finding that Hans Raj had no authority to sell the land. On the basis of these facts, it was pleaded that since the alleged vendor of the appellants was not the owner of the suit land, he could not have conveyed any title to the appellants, in respect thereof.

On the conclusion of trial, the trial court, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, recorded a finding against the appellants- plaintiffs, regarding ownership and also possession over the suit land, by holding in para no.12 of its judgment dated 25.11.2005, as follows:- "Thus Hans Raj has no concern with the estate of Dropti Devi after her death and he was not, as observed earlier within his right to alienate the suit property in favour of plaintiffs and any alienation effected by him vide sale deed Ex.P1 has no effect on the rights of defendant. There is no evidence that after the death of Deopti Devi, her property came into possession of her husband Hans Raj. If Hans Raj was not in possession over the property of Deopti Devi, after her death, he could not be in a position to transfer possessory rights in favour of plaintiffs on the basis of sale deed Ex.P1. Therefore plaintiffs cannot be termed as owner in possession on the basis of sale deed Ex.P1 neither they are entitled to injunction as prayed for because neither they nor their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Hans Raj occupied the suit property after the death of Dropti Devi ........."

The first appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial *****

court by holding inter-alia, that the appellants are not the owners of suit land because their alleged vendor Hans Raj had no title in it, which he could have conveyed to them, nor he was in its possession. It was further held by the first appellate court that the appellants had not approached the court with clean hands as they did not disclose in their pleadings that mutation sanctioned in favour of their vendor (Hans Raj), pertaining to the alleged inheritance of Dropati Devi, on the basis of the (forged) will had been set aside by the Collector, Barnala.

Both the courts had, thus, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellants are neither owners nor are in possession of the suit land.

This court, sitting in regular second appeal, cannot reconsider this pure and simple finding of fact.

Since learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial question of law which may be involved in this appeal, this court has no option but to dismiss the appeal, in limine. Ordered accordingly.

24.8.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. 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.