Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMARJIT SINGH & ORS versus SATNAM SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amarjit Singh & Ors v. Satnam Singh & Ors - RSA-3625-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 678 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.M.No.9611-C of 2005 and

R.S.A.No.3625 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 06, 2006.

Amarjit Singh and others .... Appellants Vs.

Satnam Singh and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

C.M.No.9611-C of 2005 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A.No.3625 of 2005 :

The legal representatives of the plaintiff are in appeal. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.

A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he is the exclusive owner of the suit property on the basis of family partition.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the property in question was owned by Hukma Devi, mother of Pritam Singh, Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh. The aforesaid Hukma Devi executed a registered Will dated March 29, 1988, in favour of Parminder Kaur widow of Harbans Singh. On the basis of said Will, Parminder Kaur became the exclusive owner of the suit property. As such, the claim of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property was rejected. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate court.

C.M.No.9611-C of 2005 and : 2 :

R.S.A.No.3625 of 2005

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact, with regard to due execution of the Will, 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 06, 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.