Dismissed

Bhupinder Kaur v. Piara Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2014CR/3077/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 challenging orders dismissing an application for temporary injunction. The Court held that since the alleged forgery of the sale deed remained unproven as it was not set aside, the balance of convenience favoured defendants.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition and applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC were dismissed.

Bhupinder Kaur Vs Piara Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

221

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.3077 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: September 05, 2014

Bhupinder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Piara Singh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Arvind Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner Bhupinder Kaur has filed this revision petition against Piara Singh and other respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2012 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Adhoc (FTC) Rupnagar and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, vide which application of petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed.

¶15

It is mainly stated in the petition that the suit land is owned by Ajit Singh, who died in the month of November 2009. After his death, all the moveable and immoveable properties of Ajit Singh are inherited by his daughter Bhupinder Kaur as no legal heir except her

¶16

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CR No.3077 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

is survived. When the petitioner went to the Sub-Registrar Office for moving application for transfer of the land, the petitioner surprised to see that said land was already transferred in the name of defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No.2 to 4 on the basis of some false and forged sale deed. The petitioner filed suit for declaration declaring her as owner and in possession of the suit property to the extent of the share of Ajit Singh alleging that forged and fabricated sale deed has no effect on the right of the plaintiff.

¶20

Notice of motion was issued and respondents appeared through their counsel and contested the petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶22

From the record, I find that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar vide order dated 14.11.2011 did not find prima face case in favour of the plaintiff nor balance of convenience in her favour and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Adhoc (FTC) Rupnagar vide judgment dated 10.02.2012.

¶23

From the perusal of the record, I find that at this stage sale deed is in favour of the defendants, which was executed by father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that this sale deed is forged and fabricated document, which is yet to be proved by bringing cogent evidence. This sale deed has not been set aside so far. In view of the sale deed, the plaintiff has no prima facie case in her favour. At

¶24

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CR No.3077 of 2012

¶26

-3-

¶27

this stage, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants. If temporary injunction is not granted, plaintiff/petitioner will not suffer any irreparable loss. Otherwise also, doctrine of lis pendence will apply in the present case. The findings given by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar vide order dated 14.11.2011 and Addl. District Judge, Adhoc (FTC) Rupnagar vide judgment dated 10.02.2012 are correct and as per law and do not require interference from this Court.

¶28

Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.

¶29

September 05, 2014 Vgulati

¶30

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶31

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Bhupinder Kaur v. Piara Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Kaur v. Piara Singh and Ors.

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

Subhash Vs Nar Singh & Ors.

Rajpal Vs Mukesh and Anr.

Ritu Verma and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Krishan Lal Vs Dogar Dass Sachdeva Trust

Renuka Vs Om Lata Kalyan and Ors.

Uday Shankar Gupta Vs Manu Rishi Gupta and Ors.