Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARTAR SINGH & ORS versus STATE & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KARTAR SINGH & ORS v STATE & ORS - SAW Case No. 781 of 1995 [2004] RD-RJ 438 (13 October 2004)

1. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 780/95 2. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.781/95

Date of order : 13.10.2004

HON'BLE MR. B. PRASAD, J.

HON'BLE MR. DALIP SINGH,J.

Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the appellants.

Mr. M.L. Garg, for the respondents.

In this special appeal the petitioner-appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21.9.95 by virtue of which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge observed that the appeal which was alleged to have been filed by the appellant No.5 was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation.

While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge observed that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation.

Apart from observing on limitation the learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioner-appellants have no claim or title over the land because the document of Sanad was issued on 5.6.59 and there is no documentary proof on record to show that the property has devolved on respondent No.4 in whose shoes the petitioners No.1 to 3 were. Since this was not shown in the writ petition by any proof no land was seen in the name of petitioners No.1 to 3 who were purported purchasers of the land from one Saidas. It was also observed by the learned Single

Judge that the appeal was not filed by the person who could challenge the allotment but the appeal was filed by the petitioner

Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner No.4 was not appellant before the appellate authority. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has said that only in the question of limitation the appeal cannot be dismissed. The provisions of limitation have been diluted over the years by judicial interpretations and it has been held that each day delay is not required to be explained. The learned

Single Judge has narrated that the questions of facts can only be gone into by the appellate court and dismissal of the appeal was wrong, therefore, it would not be appropriate if the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is remanded for deciding it on merits. We looked into the record, we find that the purported agreement is of somewhere around 1960-1967. These documents are showing the sale, when the Sanad has not been ready. We find from the document Ex.1 that the Sanad was issued on 5.6.1959. If this is correct then the Sanad was ready in the year 1959 then we do not see any reason for these endorsements coming in the agreement Ex.3 showing that the

Sanad is still not ready this creates suspicion in the mind the court. Further learned counsel for the appellants has placed before us a certified copy of the application made for copy of the

Sanad dated 5.6.59. On this the authorities have endorsed that such Sanad is not entered in the basic register. Such Sanad being Sanad No.1468 has not been entered into the basic register. In this background if we look into the reply filed by the

State Government then we find that the Stage Government has submitted that Jaidevi was never a claimant at any point of time.

In the basic register she has not been entered as a claimant.

That being the position it is a matter of record that no Sanad could have been issued to her in that background if the learned

Single Judge was of the opinion that Sanad could not be a genuine document everything hinges on suspicion. We are of the view that such disputed question of fact, in writ petition cannot be adjudicated. Further we find that there are two Vakalatnamas filed on record. One is signed by Amardeep and another is signed by Amandeep. Both the signatures are clearly distinguishable.

We showed these signatures to the learned counsel for the appellants and he was in agreement with the fact that both the signatures do not tally. It shows that the appellants No.1 to 3, purported purchasers have done something in bringing up

Amardeep before this Court on a disguise. We are not going into this question and leave this point here only, but further we are convinced that this Amandeep @ Amardeed who has straightway come to this Court and filed writ petition was not a genuine personality.

The learned Single Judge has observed that a civil suit was also filed by the appellants against appellant No.4 for specific performance of the agreement Ex.3 dt. 16.7.60. The said suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a restoration application for the same is pending in the trial court since 1985. This appeal was filed in 1995 and nine years have passed thereafter. We record it with a great sense of remorse that for nine years the parties have chosen to keep their restoration application pending. In the aforesaid situation we do not see that there was any illegality in the order of the learned

Single Judge. We, therefore, maintain the order of the learned

Single Judge.

(DALIP SINGH),J. (B. PRASAD),J.


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.