High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Dharam Singh v. Sewa Singh & Ors - RSA-825-2006  RD-P&H 888 (17 February 2006)
RSA NO.825 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION:February 27,2006
Sewa Singh and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri K.S.Hissowal, Advocate for the appellant.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the requisite court fee is condoned.
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court who has lost before the two Courts below in a suit for possession by way of partition. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was entitled to 1/3rd share of the land shown as ABCDEFKHA. It was claimed that the land in question was originally owned by Gurdit Singh, grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 6 and father of defendants No.1 and 2. Father of the plaintiff Pritam Singh had died in the year
1966. It was claimed that the land in question was never partitioned between the parties. However, defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No.6 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.6.
The said sale deed was a sham transaction and without consideration and did not bind the plaintiff in any manner. Defendant No.6 was CM No.1945-C of 2006 and
trying to take forcible possession. A consent written statement was filed by defendants No.3 to 5.
Defendants No.1,2 and 6 contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff had no concern with khasra Nos.151,152 and 153. It was further pleaded that father of the plaintiff and the defendants were owner of khasra No.157 only, whereas khasra Nos.152 and 153 belong to one Kishan Singh and khasra No.151 was a gair mumkin abadi.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, held that the plaintiff was not the joint owner of khasra Nos.152,153 and 151. It was further held that father of the plaintiff and the defendants were joint owner of khasra No.157 only.
Consequently, a preliminary decree for partition of the aforesaid khasra No.157 was passed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The learned First Appellate Court also notice that no evidence had been led by the plaintiff to show that khasra Nos.152 and 153 which were originally owned by Kishan Singh were ever gifted to Gurdit Singh, as claimed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court also held that khasra Nos.152 and 153 were not shown to be joint between the parties. The appeal of the plaintiff was consequently dismissed.
CM No.1945-C of 2006 and
Shri K.S.Hissowal, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the evidence on record clearly shows that the aforesaid two khasra Nos.152 and 153 were also joint between the parties and that Kishan Singh had gifted the same to Gurdit Singh. A firm finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the said khasras were not joint between the parties.
No evidence whatsoever was led by the plaintiff to show that Kishan Singh, the original owner, had at any point of time gifted the said khasra to Gurdit Singh. In these circumstances, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be held to be erroneous or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 27, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.