The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed against a family settlement agreement involving land possession, refusing to re-appreciate evidence once the landlord had taken possession.
Petition dismissed in limine.
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.
Civil Revision No. 6949 of 2010
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 6949 of 2010
Date of Decision: 26.10.2010
Dinesh Mohan
…Petitioner
Versus
Sudesh Pal Jain and Another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, appearing for the caveator/respondent No.1 has placed on record a carbon copy of the proceedings pertaining to Execution No. 65 of 2010 and has stated at bar that the landlord has taken possession of the demised premises on 20.10.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this context, has submitted that it may be a difficult task to dislodge the ground of personal necessity, as recorded by both the Courts below.
I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. They have rightly found no merit in the contention of the petitioner/tenant that the family settlement was a sham transaction.
Considering the fact that the landlord has taken over the possession of the demised premises and the Revisional Court cannot
Civil Revision No. 6949 of 2010
2
tread on the path of re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds no merit to cause interference in the present petition.
Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in
limine.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 26, 2010 “ DK ”
Dinesh Mohan
Sudesh Pal Jain
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
