Second appeal challenging decrees granting 1/4th share of suit property to plaintiff-respondent. This Court found no infirmity in lower courts’ findings and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with no relief granted to the appellants.
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.5308 of 2014 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5308 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.12.2014
Smt. Neelam Devi and others
... Appellants
Vs.
Shanti Devi
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellants.
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
At the instance of defendants-appellants, this regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaring her owner in possession of 1/4th share in the suit property comprised in khewat No.215/134, khata No.265 rect. and killa Nos.29/17 (8-0) 41/9(8-0), 51/15/1(1-12) 51/14/2(3-2) total measuring 20 kanals 11 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Ferozepur Bangar, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, has been decreed.
Admittedly, the property in dispute was owned by Begh Raj husband of the plaintiff-respondent and father-in-law of defendant-appellant No.1.
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.5308 of 2014 (O&M)
2
The case set out by the plaintiff-respondent was that during the life time, Virender Singh son of Begh Raj got a release deed in his favour of entire property. Virender Singh died on 07.05.2005 and thereafter the property was recorded in the name of defendants, whereas plaintiff-respondent had been deprived of ¼th share and the lease deed was nothing but outcome of fraud played upon her husband who admittedly was suffering from paralysis.
Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact and law on the basis of documentary evidence much less oral evidence and decreed the suit giving ¼th share to the plaintiffrespondent and remaining share has been held to be in ownership of the defendants-appellants.
I do not find any illegality much less infirmity in the judgments of both the Courts below.
No substantial question of law arises for determination of
this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
December 18, 2014 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.22 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgments and decrees below declaring 1/4th share ownership to plaintiff-respondent suffered from any illegality or infirmity warranting intervention.
Smt. Neelam Devi and others
Shanti Devi
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
