Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS. versus BACHITTAR SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhupinder Singh & Ors. v. Bachittar Singh & Ors. - RSA-3237-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 5488 (10 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYRNA AT

CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No.3237 of 2003

Date of Decision:- 24.08.2006

Bhupinder Singh & ors. ....Appellants.

through

Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate

vs.

Bachittar Singh & ors. ....Respondents

through

None.

***

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
***

SURYA KANT, J.

This regular second appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff-Gurdial Singh, whose suit for possession by way of redemption of the subject property has been dismissed by both the Courts.

As held by the learned trial Court in para 7 of its impugned judgment dated 19.5.1993 and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in para 16 of its judgment and decree dated 5.4.2003, the subject property was sold in favour of defendant-respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 by way of registered sale deed by defendant-respondent No.5, who was its undisputed owner. The present suit was filed on the premise that the said defendant- respondent No.5 had actually mortgaged the subject property for a sum of Rs.8500/- vide mortgage deed dated 17.2.1976.

As concurrently held by the Courts below and which could not be seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellant, the registered sale deed vide which defendant-respondent No.5 sold the subject land to defendant-respondent Nos.1,3 and 4, was subject-matter of challenge in a previous civil suit between the parties in which the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, namely, the deceased- plaintiff was also a party. The said sale deed was upheld upto this Court vide judgment Ex.D1.

The Courts below have further held that the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest have never been in possession of the suit land, therefore, question of redemption of the mortgage could not arise and as such the suit is also not legally maintainable. No exception can be taken to the afore-said view taken by both the Courts.

For the reasons noticed above and in the absence of any substantial question of law which may arise for consideration of this Court, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

August 24, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam 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.