Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KULWINDER KAUR versus JAGISHER SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kulwinder Kaur v. Jagisher Singh & Ors - RSA-2305-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 830 (16 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 2305 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 23, 2006

Kulwinder Kaur

.....Appellant

Vs.

Jagisher Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the appellant.

.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

There is a delay of 107 days in filing the appeal and there is a delay of 298 days in re-filing the appeal.

Application for condonation of delay for filing and refiling do not disclose any good ground to condone the said delay. Only vague averments have been made. Consequently, there is no justification to condone the delay in the filing and re-filing of the appeal. Prayer is declined. Applications stands dismissed.

R.S.A. No. 2305 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

The plaintiff Kulwinder Kaur having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiff- Kulwinder Kaur along with her two children filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners in joint possession of the suit land and that the judgment and decree dated November 30, 1996 suffered by Pala Singh in favour of the defendants was illegal, bad and not binding upon her rights.

It was claimed that the property in question was coparcenary joint family property, and therefore, Surjeet Singh the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had an interest in the same by birth.

The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the property in question was not joint Hindu family coparcenary property since Pala Singh had purchased the same from his own funds. Further the defendants relied upon the Will dated April 1, 1986 which was executed in their favour by Pala Singh.

Both the Courts below have held that the Will executed by Pala Singh in favour of the defendants was legal. Further it has been held that the nature of the property was not shown to be ancestral or coparcenary in nature.

Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial court and their appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

R.S.A. No. 2305 of 2005 (O&M) [3]

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 23, 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.