Dismissed

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda v. Sushil Kumar Bedi

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2009RSA/2878/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the appellant challenged an appellate court decreeing a suit for recovery of a loan via sale of mortgaged property. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the findings were not perverse as the appellant accepted signatures on the deed and the respondent held the title deed, making the case factual.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and application for stay were dismissed. The pending Civil Misc. Applications stand disposed of.

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda Vs Sushil Kumar… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: September 16 , 2009

¶5

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda

¶6

...... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sushil Kumar Bedi

¶9

...... Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶11

Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶18

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of borrowed amount by sale of mortgaged property.

¶19

The following questions have been proposed:-

¶20

i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court suffers from perversity being contrary to evidence on record and settled principle of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained?

¶21

ii)Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate Court regarding due execution of the mortgage deed suffers from

¶22

RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

perversity being based on assumption and presumption without either referring to the reasons given by the trial court or the evidence on record or the statutory provision applicable and referred by the trial court?

¶25

Both the questions are pure questions of fact. There are two most noteworthy facts. First is that the appellant has accepted his signatures and thumb impression on the mortgage deed but has not raised any plea as to why they appeared on the said document in case no such transaction had taken place. The second noteworthy fact is that the original title deed of the property was in possession of the respondent. It cannot be held that the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable under Section 100 CPC.

¶26

Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶29

September 16 , 2009 sunita

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda v. Sushil Kumar Bedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda v. Sushil Kumar Bedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subodh Kumar and Ors. Vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Harpinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Harpinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Devinder Nath Sharma and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Pargat Singh

Sardul Singh and Others Vs M C Kalanwali and Others