Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHADI RAM ALIAS JAI DEV versus RAM KISHAN & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shadi Ram alias Jai Dev v. Ram Kishan & Ors - RSA-472-1989 [2006] RD-P&H 9850 (3 November 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

R.S.A. No. 472 of 1989

Date of decision: 11-10-2006

Shadi Ram alias Jai Dev Vs. Ram Kishan and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
Present: Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. V.D.Sharma, Advocate UMA NATH SINGH, J.

This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 10.1.1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, in Civil Appeal No. 42/13 of 1988, dismissing the first appeal of the present appellant and consequently affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. At the time of admission of this Regular Second Appeal, the framing of substantial questions of law being not mandatory, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following substantial questions of law in the Court by way of a separate application:

1. Whether the appellant is owner in possession of 1/3rd of suit land

right from his birth because of surrender of the respective rights by appellant to elder brother?

2. Whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act was applicable in the present case?

As the learned Courts below have returned a categorical finding that the appellant was not in possession of 1/3rd of the suit

property, the first question, which essentially being a question of facts, stands answered. As regards the second question of the applicability of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, since the possession itself was found to be not proved and document heavily relied upon by the appellant, said to be a family settlement ( mark `A' ), was also not proved, this question does not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of substantial questions of law, is dismissed as such.

October 11, 2006 ( UMA NATH SINGH )

dsg 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.