Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHER MOHD. & ORS versus AMAR SINGH & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sher Mohd. & Ors v. Amar Singh & Anr - RSA-2054-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 808 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2054 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION: February 20, 2006.

Parties Name

Sher Mohd. and others

...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

Amar Singh and another

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Amit Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

CM No. 4988-C of 2004

This application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed subject to just exceptions and delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 2054 of 2004.

Predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1 to 4 and other appellants filed a suit against the respondents laying challenge to the sale deed dated February 22, 1988, by stating that as respondent No. 2 had got that property from her husband, she had only a limited right and as per custom prevalent in their community, they being reversioners, were entitled to inherit the said property. It was prayed that after setting aside the sale deed in question, decree for possession be passed in their favour.

Their suit was dismissed. They also failed in appeal. Both the Courts below have found it as a matter of fact that to prove custom, except making self-serving statement, no other evidence has been brought on record by the appellants. To prove existence of custom, reliance was placed upon a judgment Ex. P2. It is apparent from the records that none of the respondents were party in the said litigation. Both the Courts below have also observed that the appellants have failed to prove that they were reversioners and furthermore they have also failed to prove that the property in dispute was inherited by husband of respondent No.

2, from his father. It has also been held that the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 was for consideration. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments.

February 20, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC 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.