In second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the lower courts correctly found the plaintiff's title acquired via a 1994 sale deed to be valid and rejected the appellants' claim of fraud. No substantial question of law arose.
That the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.
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.
R.S.A.No.160 of 2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.160 of 2005
Date of Decision : 03.07.2009
Hawa Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
Ram Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The defendants are in second appeal against the order passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction in respect of a plot as described in the head-note of the plaint was decreed.
The plaintiff has acquired title over the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 21.2.1994 having purchased the same from Randhir Singh S/o Giani Ram. On the basis of the said sale deed, the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property. The defendant/appellants denied the title of the plaintiff and asserted that the sale deed is fraudulent and collusive and that land was never owned and possessed by Randhir Singh. The defendants claimed title over the suit land through Bhichha son of Cheta.
Both the Courts have examined the evidence led by the parties and have recorded concurrent findings of fact that in fact Randhir Singh was the owner of the suit property and not Bhichha and that Randhir Singh transferred his rights in favour of the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated
R.S.A.No.160 of 2005
2
21.2.1994.
Such finding of fact are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. I do not find that any of the findings recorded by the Courts below have been recorded either on misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence.
I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal.
Dismissed.
03.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the sale deed by the Courts below ought to be reappreciated or disturbed on substantial question of law.
Whether the title acquired by the plaintiff through the sale deed is genuine and not fraudulent or collusive.
Hawa Singh
Ram Kumar
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
