Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATNAM SINGH & ANR. versus HARNEK SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satnam Singh & Anr. v. Harnek Singh & Ors. - CR-1164-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 969 (20 February 2006)

C.R. No.1164 of 2006. (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No.1164 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 28.2.2006

Satnam Singh and another. ...Petitioners.

Versus

Harnek Singh and others. ...Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri P.L. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are in revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby their application for grant of ad-interim injunction, was declined.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 have sold their entire share to the plaintiffs on 7.6.2002 and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to protect their possession in respect of the portion falling to the share of Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 in an instrument of partition finalised on 29.4.1999.

The learned first Appellate Court has found that Sanad Takseem i.e. Instrument of Partition was prepared and execution with regard to the partition is still pending. It has been further found that the whole of the disputed land, was not allotted to Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 in partition proceedings, therefore, it was concluded that the possession of the disputed property will be given to Despondent Nos. 1, 7, 8 and 9 in execution of the partition proceedings.

Since the petitioners are alleging the purchase of the share of C.R. No.1164 of 2006. (2)

Defendant Nos. 7 to 9, therefore, the petitioners as successors of Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 would be entitled to the same rights in the instrument of partition as Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 were having. Since the execution in respect of the partition proceedings is pending, the petitioners are not entitled to seek injunction restraining the defendants from executing the order of partition.

However, it is made clear that if the Revenue Authorities find that the petitioners are in possession of any part of the suit property as purchasers and falling to the share of Defendant Nos. 7 to 9, pursuant to the partition finalised on 29.4.1999, the petitioners would be entitled to protect their possession.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

28.2.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds 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.