Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANJIT KAUR & ORS versus SIBBU

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manjit Kaur & Ors v. Sibbu - RSA-91-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 979 (20 February 2006)

R.S.A. No. 91 of 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 91 of 2004

Date of Decision: February 28, 2006

Manjit Kaur and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Sibbu

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Mohd Salim, Advocate for

Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals being R.S.A. No. 90 of 2004 and R.S.A. No. 91 of 2004 as the plaintiffs in both the cases are same and facts are also identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R.S.A. No. 91 of 2004.

The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated April 25, 1995 in favour of the original plaintiff Makhan Singh by defendant Sibbu. It was claimed that this land in question was to be sold for a total consideration of R.S.A. No. 91 of 2004 [2]

Rs.2,40,000/- per acre and the defendant had received Rs.2,18,000/- as earnest money.

Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that the agreement in question was merely executed as a security by the defendant for securing loan amount. Although a plea was taken by the defendant that the amount of loan had been re-paid but the said fact has been disbelieved by the Courts below and it has been held that the amount of loan was still payable to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- along with interest. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the learned first Appellate Court was also dismissed. Similarly, the appeal filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was also dismissed.

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 28, 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.