Dismissed

Balwant Singh and Others v. Baljinder Kaur and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2013RSA/1308/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a second appeal against a decree confirming the plaintiffs' ownership and possession of suit land. The court rejected the defendant's plea regarding an earlier dismissed suit and upheld the lower courts' findings that the defendant had no title to sell the property.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the decree dated 28.2.2011 affording declaration of ownership to plaintiffs-respondents was affirmed.

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Baljinder Kaur and Another — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.11.11 10:24I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

RSA No.1308 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶4

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RSA No.1308 of 2012 (O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: 24.9.2013

¶7

Balwant Singh and Ors.

¶8

.....Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

Baljinder Kaur and Anr.

¶11

....Respondent(s)

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶13

Present: Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶14

JASWANT SINGH, J

¶15

Defendants-appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for grant of a declaratory decree has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Tarn Taran and the findings affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Tarn Taran.

¶16

Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 24 kanals as described in the head note of the plaint with a further consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-

¶17

#2#

¶18

RSA No.1308 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

appellants from interfering into their possession over the suit land or in the alternative to grant relief of possession in respect of land measuring 4 kanals.

¶20

Case of the plaintiffs is that on earlier occasion, a civil suit was filed relating to the estate of predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 i.e his father Teja Singh in the court of Sub Judge, IIInd Class, Tarn Taran and a compromise was effected between plaintiffrespondent No.1 along with her two sisters namely Satwant Kaur as well as Rajwant Kaur and defendant/appellant No.1 as well as brotherKulwant Singh and accordingly, they were declared as owners of the suit land. Satwant Kaur and Rajwant Kaur sold their share to plaintiff No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 6.3.2003 for a valuable consideration and possession was handed over but despite that defendant-appellant No.1 sold 4 kanals of land out of 24 kanals purchased by plaintiff No.2 vide registered sale deed 6.3.2002 mentioned above.

¶21

On the other hand, defendants-appellants opposed the suit by inter alia raising the plea that earlier suit No.92 of 1991 filed by the plaintiffs has already been dismissed on 9.1.1992 by the court of learned Civil Judge, Tarn Taran and the plaintiffs deliberately concealed this fact and as such they are not entitled for any relief as claimed.

¶22

PW1-Kulwant Singh, who is the real brother of defendantappellant No.1, has duly supported the case of the plaintiffs that they

¶23

RSA No.1308 of 2012 (O&M) #3#

¶24

are owners of the land in dispute and has also admitted the filing of the earlier suit relating to the estate of Teja Singh and the factum of compromise between brothers and sisters. This witness has also supported that Satwant Kaur and Rajwant Kaur sold the suit land to plaintiff No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 6.3.2002 for consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- and possession was handed over to her and he has further deposed that defendant No.1 without any right or title sold 4 kanals of land out of this very land to his sons i.e defendant Nos.2 & 3.

¶25

It is necessary to mention here that defendants-appellants have not cross examined PW1 relating to sale deed dated 6.3.2003 and ownership of the suit land. This fact has been noticed by the learned trial Court in concluding lines of paragraph 14 of its judgment. Moreover, the execution of registered sale deed dated 6.3.2003 is duly proved by PW2. Still further, DW1-Balwant Singh/defendantappellant No.1 during his cross examination has admitted the compromise deed dated 15.6.1993. In these circumstances, both the courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. So far as the preliminary objection regarding dismissal of earlier civil suit on 9.1.1992 is concerned, the same is of no consequence as this point was considered by the learned trial Court while deciding issues Nos.1 & 4, which shows that neither any certified copy of order of the Court nor any plaint or written statement has been brought on record. Moreover, the said suit was

¶26

#4#

¶27

RSA No.1308 of 2012 (O&M)

¶28

dismissed in default only and the suit land in the present case was not the part of dispute in the Civil Suit No.92 of 1991 and reference in this regard may be made to paragraph 10 of the judgment of learned first Appellate Court.

¶29

Thus, defendants-appellants cannot take any benefit of the said plea. Once it is proved that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, then defendant-appellant No.1 has no right or title to execute the sale deed dated 23.11.2000 in respect of 4 kanal land in favour of his sons i.e defendant/appellant Nos.2 & 3.

¶30

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal to be adjudicated under Section 100 CPC.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

September 24,2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Balwant Singh and Others v. Baljinder Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh and Others v. Baljinder Kaur and Another

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

Shiv Grover Vs Santosh Kumari

Malkiat Kaur Vs Kuldeep Kaur

Inder Vs Karan Singh & Ors.

Shabeg Singh and Anr. Vs Gulshan Rani

Jai Narain Vs Sheodutt Rai

Mehar Chand Vs Gian Chand