Dismissed

Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur v. Dayal Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Sept 2013RSA/3693/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge appellate order impleading the legal heir and condoning a 44-day delay for a second appeal regarding a suit for possession. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the suit was barred by res judicata and limitation.

What did the court decide?

Impleadment of appellant as legal heir allowed; delay condoned; second appeal dismissed as barred by res judicata and limitation.

Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur Vs Dayal Singh… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RSA 3693/2013(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA 3693/2013(O&M) Date of decision:19/09/2013

¶5

Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur

¶6

.............Appellant

¶7

¶8

Dayal Singh and others

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Tribhawan Singla,Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

CM No.9935-C/2013 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleading the legal heir of deceased plaintiff/appellant Balvir Singh, who is stated to have died on 10.6.2013 leaving behind no other legal heirs except his daughter Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur, as stated in para 1 of the application. The application is supported by an affidavit of said Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur.

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur is permitted to be brought on record as legal heir of deceased plaintiff/appellant-Balvir Singh for the purpose of pursuing the present appeal.

¶15

Since there is delay of 44 days in filing the present appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, bearing CM No.9936-C/2013 has been filed. The application is supported by an

¶16

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶17

¶18

RSA 3693/2013(O&M)

¶19

affidavit of aforesaid Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur.

¶20

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

RSA 3693/2013.

¶22

Legal representative of plaintiff-Balvir Singh is in second appeal against the judgments passed by both the courts below whereby his suit for possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

¶23

Plaintiff-Balvir Singh filed a suit for possession on 2.9.2006 claiming that he is owner of suit land comprising 3K7M and the defendants 1 to 4 have no concern with the same. It was further stated that in order to grab the land of the plaintiff the said defendants got executed a sale deed dated 8.11.1991 from the plaintiff by taking undue advantage of his weak mental condition. It was further stated that the defendants had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 14.2.1998 against the present plaintiff and others seeking a declaration of ownership in possession on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed dated 8.11.1991, wherein their plea was negated and the appeal also was dismissed. It was further claimed that the defendants had forcibly taken possession of the suit land from the plaintiff in the month of June 2006. Contesting defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement by taking an objection that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as also was beyond limitation. It was further stated that in the aforesaid suit dated 14.2.1998 filed by them their sale deed was never set aside. It was further claimed that they were owners in possession of the land on the basis of sale deed since the date of purchase.

¶24

Upon pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Evidence of the plaintiff after filing of his affidavit in examination-in-chief was closed by order vide order dated 2.12.2011. The same attained finality. Both the courts below in view of lack of any evidence have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶25

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶26

¶27

RSA 3693/2013(O&M)

¶28

After hearing counsel for the Plaintiff/appellant I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.

¶29

It is apparent that the present plaintiff was a defendant in the earlier suit filed by present contesting defendants 1 to 4 regarding the sale deed dated 8.11.1991 and no counter claim for setting aside the same was filed by the present plaintiff in that suit. Thus the present suit is clearly barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as also suffers from the vice of limitation, having been filed after a delay of more than fifteen years.

¶30

Consequently, the present second appeal is dismissed as no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

¶31

19.09.2013. joshi

¶32

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

¶33

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur v. Dayal Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Kaur @ Malkiat Kaur v. Dayal Singh & Anr.

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

Pankaj Sablok Vs Prince Kalia

Shri Krishan Vs Balwan

Parveen Kumar Vs Sunita Rani and Anr.

Rajendra Sharma Vs M/S M.S.Goods Carrier

Mohan Singh Vs Manmohan Kumar

M/S Gurnam Singh & Co. & Ors. Vs M/S v S Enterprises & Anr.