Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jairam v. Mahender - RSA-1151-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7743 (25 September 2006)


In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision : 10.10.2006.

Jairam .... Appellant.


Mahender ....Respondent.

Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.

Present: Mr.S.K.Sharma,Advocate,for the appellant.

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

The respondent filed a suit for possession, by way of pre- emption, of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas which had been sold out of a joint khewat comprising 48 kanals 12 marlas area, by the vendor, to the appellant, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 10.6.1991. He claimed a superior right of pre-emption, on the ground of being a co-sharer in the joint khewat.

The appellant contested the suit, denying the status of the respondent as a co-sharer in the land and on that ground, his superior right of pre-emption. However, he pleaded, that in case of decretal of suit, he was entitled to get the stamp and registration charges of the sale-deed and the improvement charges amounting to Rs.50,000/-, in addition to the sale- price of Rs.50,000/-. Preliminary objections regarding locus standi of the respondent to file the suit and maintainability of suit in the form it was filed were also taken up, in addition to the pleas of limitation and estopple.

The trial court held that the respondent was a co-sharer in the land in question and had, therefore, a superior right to pre-empt the sale.

Remaining issues were not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.


The same, too, were, therefore, decided against him and the suit was decreed subject to deposit of Rs.56767.25 paise (inclusive of stamp and registration charges), excluding the 1/5th pre-emption money already

deposited, by 21.6.1992, failing which it was to stand dismissed with costs.

The appellant had earlier filed regular first appeal which was allowed and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.6.1996. The respondent filed a regular second appeal, which resulted into remand of the matter to the first appellate court, for fresh decision. On receipt of the case, by way of remand, the first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

The vendee-appellant, thereafter, filed the present regular second appeal.

However, when the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel was fair enough to state that it does not involve determination of any substantial question of law.

Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent (plaintiff) was a co-sharer in the joint khewat of which the suit land forms a part, and, as such, had a superior right to pre-empt its sale.

A categorical finding of fact in this regard, which is based on documentary evidence, cannot be interfered with, in a regular second appeal.

The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed, in limine.

10.10.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)

vs. Judge.


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.