Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARDWARI versus SURENDER & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hardwari v. Surender & Ors - RSA-436-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 800 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 436 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 27, 2006

Hardwari

.....Appellant

Vs.

Surender and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. A.K. Geol, Advocate,

for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

There is a delay of 284 days in refiling the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

The Plaintiff having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. He claimed that defendant No.1 Surender was not the adopted son of Bhoru Ram, brother of the plaintiff and the adoption deed proclaimed by him was illegal, bad and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

Bhoru Ram was not married and as such had no issue. Plaintiff claimed that at no point of time any adoption had taken place, therefore, the R.S.A. No. 436 of 2006 (O&M) [2]

registered adoption deed dated January 1, 1980 indicating the adoption was wholly illegal and bad.

The defendants contested the suit and defended the adoption and also challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to challenge the adoption. The defendants also set up a Will dated October 14, 1991, executed by Bhoru Ram in favour of defendant No.1.

The learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held that the property was not even shown to be ancestral in the hands of Bhoru Ram as such the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It was also noticed that the name of defendant No.1 was entered in the ration card of Bhoru as adopted son. The adoption deed was also held to be legal and valid. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and appeal filed by him 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 record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

January 27, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.