Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARAJ SINGH & ANOTHER versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Karaj Singh & another v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors - RSA-4602-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 712 (10 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.4602 of 2002

Date of Decision : February 21, 2006.

Karaj Singh & another .... Appellants

Vs.

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

* * *

Present : Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Munishwar Puri, Advocate

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT (Oral ) :

The plaintiffs have lost concurrently before the two courts below. They filed a suit for declaration claiming right to the suit property on the basis of a Will dated March 06, 1994. They claimed exclusive ownership of the property on the basis of alleged Will dated March 06, 1994, claimed to have been executed by Joginder Singh in their favour.

They also challenged the Will dated June 17, 1994, executed by Joginder Singh in favour of defendants no.1 to 4 and the decree dated February 24, 1993 suffered by Joginder Singh in favour of the aforesaid defendants.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that the Will dated March 06, 1994, relied upon by the plaintiffs was not shown to be executed by Joginder Singh. It was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

The validity of Will dated June 17, 1994, executed by Joginder Singh in favour of defendants no.1 to 4 was upheld and also the decree dated February 24, 1993, suffered by Joginder Singh in favour of the defendants was held to be legal and valid.

R.S.A.No.4602 of 2002 : 2 :

The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial court and appeal filed by them failed before 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 21, 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.