Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HUKAM CHAND versus KARTAR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hukam Chand v. Kartar Singh & Ors - RSA-1847-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 863 (16 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 1847 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 10, 2006

Hukam Chand

.....Appellant

Vs.

Kartar Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kahar Singh, Advocate

for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing 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 filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was owner of the suit land having purchased the same from Chander alias Ram Chander vide registered sale deed dated June 10, 1997. It was further claimed that the aforesaid Ram Chander had become the owner of the suit land when the same was transferred by Gram Panchayat in his favour. Consequently, it was claimed that the plaintiff was owner R.S.A. No. 1847 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

in possession of the suit land and defendants had no right to interfere in his possession.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff had not acquired any title in the suit property because the Gram Panchayat was not even the owner of the said property. Although, at one point of time, there was a wrong mutation of the entire land in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The said mutation was got corrected lateron.

Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that the Gram Panchayat was never owner in possession of the suit property, and therefore, Ram Chander had no title over it. In these circumstances, the Ram Chander did not have any right to execute the registered sale deed dated June 10, 1997 in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was held to be not in possession of the suit property also.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal 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.

February 10, 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.