Dismissed

Krishan Kumar v. General Public

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2009FAO/5201/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge dismissal rejects an appellant father's plea to sell his adult son's registered property to fund the son's higher education. The court held the father should have maintained the son and noted the major son can now decide for his own welfare. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

Krishan Kumar Vs General Public — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

FAO No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 9.12.2009.

Krishan Kumar

... .Appellant

Versus

General Public

... Respondent

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present:Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL J.

¶14

¶15

The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner being father seeking permission to sell the property registered in the name of his son Sumit Kumar was dismissed as Court did not find sufficient reason to grant permission.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that son of the petitioner who was born on 27.3.1993 is presently studying in 10+1 and for spending money for his higher studies sufficient money is required and for the purpose the house in question which was registered in the name of the son is required to be sold. It is for the welfare of the child only that the house is being sold so that he could get better education. He further submitted that the house in question otherwise was also purchased by the appellant from his own money by selling his other property.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of sale deed produced on record as Annexures A1 and A2 show that the property which was allegedly owned by the appellant was sold on 10.5.1999 whereas the property which was registered in the name of son of the appellant was purchased on 22.2.1999. The age of the son of the appellant is more than 16 ½ years at present. He is in 10 +1. If the father could maintain his child, which is his moral duty, till this age there is no

¶18

FAO No. 5201 of 2009 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

reason that he could not maintain him for another 1 ½ years and provide him good education. Thereafter the son of the petitioner being major can take his own decision considering his welfare.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition and dismiss the same. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.

¶22

(RAJESH BINDAL) 9.12.2009 JUDGE Reema

Krishan Kumar v. General Public

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. General Public

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

Darbara Singh etc. Vs Dalip Kaur etc.

Charanjit Singh Vs Rakha Ram and Others

Baljit Kaur Vs Pargat Singh

Mahavir Vs Rami Devi

Mange Ram Vs Ranbir and Ors.

Ved Dewan Vs Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate