High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Champa Rani & Ors v. Mangat Ram - RSA-2716-2002  RD-P&H 726 (14 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.2716 of 2002
Date of Decision : February 02, 2006.
Champa Rani and others .... Appellants
Mangat Ram .... Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Raman Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate
for the respondent.
The legal representatives of defendant are in appeal before me having concurrently lost before the two courts below.
A suit for possession by way of specific performance of the shop in question was filed by plaintiff-Mangat Ram. It was claimed that an agreement dated February 11, 1992 was executed by him for Rs.55,000/-.
An earnest money of Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before May 11,
1993. Since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, therefore, the suit was filed.
Defendant-Hans Raj appeared. He denied the execution of any agreement by him in favour of the plaintiff. He also denied receipt of any earnest money from the plaintiff. He also claimed that he was not the exclusive owner of the shop in dispute and was not competent to sell the same.
Both the courts below have concurrently held that the agreement February 11, 1992 was duly executed by Hans Raj in favour of the plaintiff and that Hans Raj had received a sum of Rs.30,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement. It was also held that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
R.S.A.No.2716 of 2002 : 2 :
The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and appeal filed by the defendant failed before the first appellate court.
Shri Raman Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal representatives of the defendant, has argued that Hans Raj was not competent to sell the entire property since Hans Raj was not the exclusive owner. It has been claimed that besides him, his sisters were also the owners qua their share.
I am afraid the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted on behalf of legal representatives of Hans Raj. The learned first appellate court has found it as a fact that property was exclusively owned by Hans Raj.
In view of the aforesaid findings, no infirmity in the judgments and decrees of the courts below, can be found.
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 )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.