Dismissed

Pyari Devi v. Singh Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2009CR/5846/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal reference arising from an execution petition. The petitioner, claiming ownership via an alleged oral will, sought to object to a decree for joint possession. The High Court dismissed her application, finding the objections frivolous and the will non-existent, allowing the executing court's order.

What did the court decide?

The application for interference with the executing court's order was dismissed.

Pyari Devi Vs Singh Ram and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

CR No.5846 of 2009

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CR No.5846 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 13.10.2009 ****

Pyari Devi

. . . . Petitioner

VS.

Singh Ram and Others

. . . . Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

¶14

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶20

1. The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Executing Court, Ambala, dismissing her objections in an Execution petitions pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Ambala. The respondent-decree-holders filed a suit for joint possession against the two sons of the petitioner, namely, Mam Chand and Ram Kumar. The suit was decreed by the Civil Court, Ambala, vide judgement and decree dated 27.01.1997.

¶21

1. In the pending Execution petition, the petitioner filed the objections claiming herself to be the absolute owner of the property in dispute, yet allegedly not impleaded as a party to the suit and that her title and possessory rights could not have been adversely affected behind her back.

¶22

1. The above stated objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court after observing that the petitioner is the mother

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

CR No.5846 of 2009

¶25

of the judgement debtors, she is residing along with her sons since long and no such objections were ever raised during the pendency of the Civil suit. Similarly, no document or evidence whatsoever, has been brought on record to prove the petitioner’s exclusive ownership with regard to the property in dispute. In fact, the petitioner claims herself to be the sole owner on the basis of an oral Will dated 15^th January, 1989 executed by her father-Late Sh. Ratti Ram.

¶26

1. In my considered view, the Executing Court, having regard to the frivolity of the objections, has rightly turned down the plea based upon a non-existent Will.

¶27

1. No ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Executing Court, Ambala, is made out.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶30

13.10.2009 shonkar

Pyari Devi v. Singh Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyari Devi v. Singh Ram and Ors.

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

Nachattar Singh and Ors. Vs Sarabjit Singh and Ors.

M/S Jain Rice Mills Vs Punsup

Asha Rani Vs Jatinder Gulati

Saroj Rani and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Sareen and Ors.

M/S Satpal Pawan Kumar Commission Agent &Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar

Bhagwan Singh Vs Ghadsi Ram