Appeal against dismissal of a successor's claim for a share in property where prior suit was decreed. Bench held appeal was an absolute bar due to delay and merit; appeal and stay application dismissed.
The appeal and the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.
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.2515 of 2008 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2515 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 11 , 2009
Sukha Singh and others
...... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Darshana and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6. ****
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.
The original suit was filed by Balkar Singh and Harinder Singh for declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2302/4582 share, wherein their alternative claim was decreed. After more than 12 years the legal representatives of Balkar Singh filed appeal. This appeal has been dismissed both on the ground of delay as also on merit holding that once suit filed by the predecessor of the appellant was decreed there was no occasion for the appellants to prefer the appeal
RSA No.2515 of 2008 (O&M)
2
The following questions have been proposed:-
No question has been proposed with regard to the twin limbs of the reasoning of the learned lower Appellate Court. In my opinion the reasons that weighed with the learned lower Appellate Court cannot be deemed to be suffering from any infirmity in law.
The proposed questions do not arise.
Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are
dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
September 11, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to a specific share in the suit land?
Whether the present appeal can be allowed qua the proforma respondent based on a compromise?
Whether the present appellants are entitled to receive compensation of the suit land as prayed in the suit?
Sukha Singh and others
Smt. Darshana and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
