Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Balbir Kaur & Ors v. Shubeg Singh & Ors - CR-3363-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5465 (10 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

C.R. No.3363 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of decision:24-8-2006

Balbir Kaur & others ..........Petitioners Versus

Shubeg Singh & others ..........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Ajay Sharda, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for respondent No.2.


The present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below declining the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC seeking to restrain respondents herein from alienating the property in dispute.

The case set up by the petitioners is that they are sister of the defendant-respondents being daughter of Kartar Singh. Therefore, they are entitled to inherit the property as the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Kartar Singh.

The learned Courts below on the basis of material before them came to the conclusion that by way of Civil Court decree the property was transferred to respondent Nos 1 and 2. The said decree was challenged by one Hardeep Singh, respondent No.3 herein claiming to be 3rd son of

Kartar Singh. However, the suit filed by him was dismissed. Even the appeal and second appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. It C.R. No.3363 of 2004 (O&M)

was held in the previous case that besides the decree, there was a Will in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed by Kartar Singh which was duly executed by Kartar Singh, which was duly proved.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is yet to be proved whether the property is ancestral and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the injunction prayed for.

I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find no force in the same. In view of the decree of the Civil Court which has been upheld in the previous suit as well as keeping in view the Will in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, prima facie there is no case in favour of the present petitioners. The learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

August 24, 2006 (VINOD K.SHARMA)

'dls' JUDGE


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.