Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALJEET KAUR & ORS versus PREETO & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baljeet Kaur & Ors v. Preeto & Ors - RSA-4450-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 917 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 4450 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 7, 2006

Baljeet Kaur and others .....Appellants

Vs.

Preeto and others .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The defendants have remained unsuccessful before the learned first Appellate Court have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in equal shares of 3/8th

share of land measuring 33 kanals 2 marlas on the basis of the inheritance and that the mutation in favour of the defendants was illegal. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the land in question was originally owned by R.S.A. No. 4450 of 2005 (O&M) [2]

Nidhan Singh and after his death was succeeded by his son Sadhu Singh and daugthers and his widow Roori. On the death of Roori and Kartaro, Sadhu Singh became the owner of share. After the death of Sahdu Singh property was to be succeeded by his children. The defendants had set up a Will, which was never executed by Sadhu Singh and got a wrong entry in mutation.

The defendants contested the suit and defended the mutation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs being barred by limitation. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiffs. The learned first Appellate Court found that the defendants have not led any evidence in the case to claim exclusive ownership of the suit property. The defendants had also failed to prove the plea of adverse possession taken by them. Although the mutation was shown to be entered on the basis of some Will in favour of the defendants but no such plea was taken by the defendants in the written statement nor any such Will was ever produced during the course of trial. The suit of the plaintiffs was held to be within limitation inasmuch as the suit was based on the basis of a title.

Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and the suit filed by them was decreed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court 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 7, 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.