Single oral order dismissing an appeal by condoning a 46-day delay. Upheld lower courts' findings regarding regional titles,
Delay condoned under Section 5 Limitation Act; Appeal 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.
RSA No.597 of 2008 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.597 of 2008 (O&M). Decided on: November 13, 2009.
Mohan Lal through Legal Representatives
.. Appellants
VERSUS
Mohinder Kumar and others
.. Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
For the reasons mentioned in the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay of 46 days in filing of the appeal
is hereby condoned.
The application stands allowed.
Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory
...1
RSA No.597 of 2008 (O&M)
injunction against the defendants-appellants has been decreed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent is owner of the house in dispute. The claim of the defendants that they are in possession of the house since 13.01.1992, pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 07.08.1991, executed by Surinder Nath Garg, the original owner, has not been accepted by the Courts below.
Counsel for the appellants has contended that defendant No.2, Bimla Devi, was delivered possession on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 07.08.1991, by Surinder Nath Gartg, on payment of initial earnest amount of Rs.15,000/-. It is claimed that subsequently, a total sum of Rs.1,85,000/- had been paid to Surinder Nath Garg. It has also been argued that the defendants-appellants have been paying the installments to the Housing Board being in possession.
After hearing counsel for the defendantsappellants, at length, I am of the opinion that a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below on the basis of documents EX.P4, Allotment Letter, letters EX.P.5 & EX.P6, and indemnity bonds EX.P7 & EX.P8, in favour of Housing Board, that the plaintiff-respondent is owner of the property in dispute. The status of the defendants-appellants has been held to be that of a licensee. Though the defence of the appellants that they are holding the possession of the property being the potential purchasers on
...2
RSA No.597 of 2008 (O&M)
payment of a sum of Rs.1,85,000/-, is not sufficient enough to defeat the rights of the original owner, but at the same time, in view of the settled principle of law that an agreement of sale does not confer any title, defendants having not availed of rights, if any, accrued to them pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale, they are not entitled to claim ownership.
No substantial question of law arises for
adjudication.
The appeal is dismissed. However, it is left open to the appellant-defendant No.2, to claim the money alleged to have been paid to Surinder Nath Garg and to exercise her Civil and criminal rights against him for the wrong done to her, in accordance with law.
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE
November 13, 2009. rka
...3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the appellants, as potential purchasers paying installments, can claim ownership status over a property held under a licensing arrangement.
Mohan Lal through Legal Representatives
Mohinder Kumar
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
