Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UGGA SAIN versus NAKLI & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ugga Sain v. Nakli & Ors - RSA-3743-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 686 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3743 of 2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision : February 10, 2006.

Ugga Sain .... Appellant

Vs.

Nakli and others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.S.S.Ghangas, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two courts below, in a suit for declaration whereby he challenged the sale deed dated October 26, 1989, executed by Chander Bhan (defendant no.5), in favour of defendants no.2 to 4. It was claimed by him that the land in question did not belong to Chander Bhan inasmuch as mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.6 had exchanged the lands in the year 1973 and thereafter plaintiffs had become the owners of the suit land.

Both the courts below have concurrently rejected the claim of the plaintiff by holding that the land in question belong to Chander Bhan and an order effecting partition was passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Panipat on October 23, 1986 and thereafter, Chander Bhan was the owner of the suit land. The aforesaid order dated October 23, 1986 was never challenged by the plaintiff or anybody else before any competent court and therefore, the same had attained finality. It was also held that the alleged exchange of suit land by the plaintiff with Jeetu etc. was not of any specific khasra numbers and therefore, the plaintiff had become merely the co-sharer in the joint land.

R.S.A.No.3743 of 2003 (O&M) : 2 :

In view of the above findings, learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and even the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned first appellate court.

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.

Dismissed.

February 10, 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.