Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAJNI versus PARKASH KAUR & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhajni v. Parkash Kaur & Ors. - RSA-3476-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6631 (7 September 2006)

Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of2006.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2006.

Date of decision14.9.2006.

Bhajni

...Appellant

Versus

Parkash Kaur and others.

...Respondents.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.P.L.Singla Advocate for the appellant.

...

Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.

Bhajni appellant has inherited 1/7th share in the land measuring 48 Kanals 10 Marlas from her father Ram Singh. Parkash Kaur, respondent No.1 being the daughter-in-law of said Ram Singh also inherited 1/7th share but she was shown in the revenue record as co-sharer to the extent of 2/7th share. Parkash Kaur has also set up sale deed dated 19.7.1991 allegedly executed by Bhajni appellant in her favour. Hence, Bhajni filed the suit pleading that the said sale deed was illegal, null and void and without consideration. The revenue entries were also illegal and not binding on the appellant.

Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of2006.

The suit was contested by the respondents. A specific plea was taken by Parkash Kaur, respondent No.1 that Bhajni appellant had sold her land vide sale deed dated 19.7.1991 and the mutation was sanctioned in her favour and she was also in its cultivating possession.

Issues were framed.

The parties led the evidence.

The learned trial Court held that since Bhajni had executed a valid registered sale deed dated 19.7.1991 in favour of Parkash Kaur respondent, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.9.2003.

The appellant filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.7.2005.

Hence, the present appeal.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the sale deed was without any consideration and no amount was paid before the Sub Registrar nor any receipt was produced which might have been executed by Bhajni appellant in favour of Parkash Kaur respondent after having received the sale consideration. Hence, it was submitted that the said sale deed was without consideration and invalid.

This submission has been considered. It has no merits.

There is a recital in the sale deed dated19.7.1991 that the vendor has received the amount of consideration at home. Therefore, even if no Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of2006.

money has been paid before the Sub Registrar, the sale deed cannot be termed to be without consideration.

The sale deed was executed by Bhajni on 19.7.1991 but the suit was filed by her on 10.4.2001 challenging the said sale deed.

Therefore, it is obviously after the expiry of the period of limitation.

Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that sale deed dated 19.7.1991 executed by Bhajni appellant in favour of Parkash Kaur respondent was legal and valid. There is no circumstance on the file to set aside the said findings.

No merit.

Dismissed.

September 14,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi 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.