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


Shri Guru Granth Sahib v. Joginder Singh & Ors - RSA-830-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 557 (3 February 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.830 of 2002

Date of Decision : February 02, 2006.

Shri Guru Granth Sahib .... Appellant


Joginder Singh & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate

for the respondents.


The defendant Shri Guru Granth Sahib is appellant before this court. The defendant has lost concurrently before the courts below.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that land measuring 69 kanals 4 marlas including some other land was mortgaged by one Wasawa Singh in favour of Ghulla Singh etc., as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1922-23. It has further been claimed that Ghulla Singh sold the mortgagee rights in favour of some other persons and after that, the mortgagee rights were purchased by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and after that, plaintiffs are coming in possession of the suit land including some other land. It was claimed that the plaintiffs are in settled possession of the suit land and that the defendants are trying to forcibly dispossess them. The defendants had filed an application for redemption of the suit land before the Collector, which was accepted wrongly. Consequently, the order dated August 25, 1994 passed by the Collector, was sought to be challenged by the plaintiff through the present suit.

R.S.A.No.830 of 2002 : 2 :

The suit was contested by the defendants. Technical pleas were also taken up. On merits, it was claimed that mortgagee rights were never purchased by the predecessors in the interest of plaintiffs and as such, the defendants are in possession of the suit land including some other land and as such, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land as contained in mortgage deed.

The suit was decreed by the trial court. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for additional evidence was also filed by the plaintiffs. The said application was allowed and mortgage deeds Ex.DX-1 to DX-4 were taken on record. No evidence was led in rebuttal by defendants.

On the basis of original evidence on record, as well as on the basis of mortgage deeds in question, the learned first appellate court also found that the said land was shown to be mortgaged. It was also noticed that period of redemption had already expired. Consequently, it was held that the order of the Collector, ordering redemption of the land was not legal under the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appeal of the defendants was also dismissed.

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.


February 02, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.