Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Saroj Rani & Ors v. Raj Dulari - RSA-358-2007 [2007] RD-P&H 1167 (1 February 2007)

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

R.S.A.No. 358 of 2007 (O&M)

Decided on February 05,2007

Saroj Rani and others --Appellants.


Raj Dulari --- Respondent.

Present: Mr. Ajay Sharda,Advocate,for the appellant.

Pritam Pal,J:(Oral)

This appeal by defendants, is directed against judgment and decree dated May 23,2006 passed by Civil Judge, and September 25,2006, by learned District Judge, Patiala, whereby a preliminary decree for partition of joint property bearing shop No. 5603/1,Min measuring 20 Square Yards, situated at Arya Samaj ,Patiala, bounded as under:-

East : Ashru Ram

West : Road

North : Surinder Gupta

South : Road,

was passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against appellants/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants'). At the same time, the defendants were restrained from alienating the entire shop to any other person. Appeal filed by the defendants also failed.

A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, goes a long way to show that the plaintiff has been held to be owner in possession to the extent of share of the demised shop on the basis of a registered sale deed in her favour . In fact, plaintiff Raj Dulari and defendant No.1 Saroj Rani, are the wives of two real brothers, namely Ashok Kumar and Surinder Pal. Both these ladies had purchased the shop in dispute by a joint registered sale deed, which has been duly proved on the file. They both are co-sharers to the extent of share each in the said shop.

In view of the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, no interference is called for in the findings of fact arrived at on the crucial issues involved in this appeal. Moreover, learned counsel for the defendant also could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

February 05,2007 (Pritam Pal)

RR Judge


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.