The appellant challenged the dismissal of his appeal regarding a portion of a suit property. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court's finding on ownership and held that the appeal was rightly dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. All pending Civil Misc. Applications were disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 1334 of 2006 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 1334 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 27, 2009
Subhash Chand
...... Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Shailender Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who had filed suit claiming a declaration that he is owner in joint possession of the suit property described in para 1-A and 1-B of the plaint. The learned trial court dismissed the suit in entirety. In appeal the learned lower Appellate court, however, decreed the suit with respect to property mentioned in para 1-A but dismissed the appeal with regard to property mentioned in para 1-B . It is against that part dismissal that this present appeal has been filed.
The following questions have been proposed:-
RSA No. 1334 of 2006 (O&M)
2
registration?
ii)Whether limitation to challenge a decree and mutation starts from the date of knowledge or from the date of passing of such decree of sanction of mutation?
iii)Whether the findings given by both the learned Courts
below regarding the property being subject matter of the consent decree suffer from misreading of evidence?
With regard to question No.(i) learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the present consent decree did not require registration as the respondents were sons of Shambhu Dayal. With regard to question No. (ii) learned lower Appellate Court has rightly found that the respondents had duly proved that the property had been purchased by Shambhu Dayal and that the appellants he not been able to prove that the said property was purchased out of Joint Hindu Family funds. Once this finding is upheld question No.(ii) pales into insignificance.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
July 27, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a consent decree can be acted upon without registration.
Whether limitation to challenge a decree and mutation starts from the date of knowledge or from the date of passing of such decree of sanction of mutation.
Whether the findings given by the courts below regarding the property being subject matter of the consent decree suffer from misreading of evidence.
Subhash Chand
Pawan Kumar
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
