Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VAKEEL SINGH & ORS versus SHEO RAM & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vakeel Singh & Ors v. Sheo Ram & Ors - RSA-227-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 537 (3 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.227 of 2003

Date of Decision : February 14, 2006.

Vakeel Singh & others .... Appellants

Vs.

Sheo Ram & others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate

for the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

The defendants are in appeal, having concurrently lost before the two courts below.

The plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated May 29, 1986. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that Tula Ram (father of defendant no.1) was owner of the suit property and had entered into the aforesaid agreement in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.40,000. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to Tula Ram as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before November 30, 1986. Tula Ram died before the aforesaid date, therefore, the plaintiffs asked the defendants to execute the sale deed but it was not done. Consequently, the suit in question was filed.

The defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiffs. They denied the execution of any agreement by Tula Ram in favour of the plaintiffs. They also claimed that a Will had been executed by Tula Ram in favour of defendants no.2 to 6. However, the defendants claimed that they were not bound by the agreement to sell by Tula Ram.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that the agreement to sell was duly executed by Tula Ram and he also received an earnest money of Rs.10,000/-. It was also held that the plaintiffs were always willing and ready to perform their part of the agreement.

R.S.A.No.227 of 2003 : 2 :

Because of the Will in question in favour of the defendants, the defendants were also held to be liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 14, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.