Dismissed

Kanwaljeet Singh v. Manak Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2006CR/4606/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, via a concise order, dismissed a criminal revision petition. The appellant sought to set aside an order restraining him from interfering with the respondent's possession of land. The court found no patent illegality in the impugned order, holding that disputes regarding the validity of sales Deeds in undivided property are for determination on evidence during

What did the court decide?

The petition for revision is dismissed. The order of the first Appellate Court restraining the appellant from interfering with the respondent's possession is upheld.

Kanwaljeet Singh Vs Manak Ram — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

(1)

¶2

CR No. 4606 of 2004

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 4606 of 2004 Date of Decision: 10.10.2006

Kanwaljeet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Manak Ram

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

¶11

Present: Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 18.8.2004, whereby the defendant-petitioner was restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 433/724, Khasra Nos. 11//1 Min, 11/2 Min, 11/6 Min, 12/1 Min, 12/2 Min situated at village Hamidpur, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

¶14

It is the case of the plaintiff that the land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas is purported to be purchased by the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 7.3.2000 executed on behalf of Surinder Singh. It is the case of the plaintiff that said Surinder Singh died on 13.7.1991 and, therefore, the sale on the basis of which the defendant is claiming possession is not sustainable. Apart from the said sale deed, the defendant is relying upon the purchase of another 4 kanals of land vide registered sale deed dated 27.3.2001 executed on behalf of the present plaintiff.

¶15

A perusal of the sale deed dated 27.3.2001 leaves no manner of

¶16

CR No. 4606 of 2004 (2)

¶17

doubt that sale is of undivided joint property. The question whether Surinder Singh has died on 13.7.1991 and consequently the sale purportedly executed on his behalf is illegal and void, is a question which can be decided after evidence is led. The sale of undivided share in favour of the defendant will not confer any right to claim actual physical possession of the property in dispute. The right of the petitioner in such circumstances is to seek actual partition of the joint land.

¶18

However, at this stage, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendant has been restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute.

¶19

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

¶20

10-10-2006 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE +

Kanwaljeet Singh v. Manak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwaljeet Singh v. Manak Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hy. Vs Santra

Jai Pal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.

Bhushan Pal Vs Mohan Lal

M/S Ganpati Service Station Vs Distt. Magistrate and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Kamlesh Kumari

Jarnail Singh and Another Vs Rajbir Singh and Others