Dismissed

Seo Singh and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2014RSA/970/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal by defendants against the first appellate court's decree. The lower court found the plaintiff was the absolute owner based on a sale deed. This court noted prior rulings where the appellant failed to prove ownership, rendering the current appeal without merit. The impugned judgment was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed with no interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.

Seo Singh and Ors. Vs Hem Singh and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 19^th May, 2014

Seo Singh and others

� Appellants

Versus

Hem Singh and another

¶8

� Respondents

¶9

�� !�"��#��#��

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶14

Mr. S.S. Nara, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶15

��#��#��$��"�

¶16

Respondent No.1 filed the instant suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants and proforma respondent from interfering in his ownership and possession over the plot in dispute, claiming that he had purchased the aforesaid plot vide sale deed dated 31.05.2002 from Zhandu Ram son of Molar Singh, its previous owner, and has become absolute owner in possession of the suit property.

¶17

The suit was contested by the appellants and proforma respondent denying that Zhandu Ram son of Molar Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. The appellants have also taken a

¶18

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶19

¶20

��

¶21

plea that the sale deed dated 31.05.2002, on the basis of which the plaintiff2respondent No.1 is claiming himself to be owner in possession, is a forged and fabricated document, which has been obtained by him to grab their property. The appellants have further asserted their actual and physical possession over the suit property.

¶22

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following

¶23

issues were framed by the trial Court:

¶24

Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

¶25

Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶26

Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non2joinder of parties? OPD

¶27

Relief.

¶28

The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 05.03.2009, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff2respondent.

¶29

Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 holding that the plaintiff2respondent was owner in possession of the suit property. It may further be noticed that while decreeing the suit, the lower appellate Court has found that the suit land was vacant and plaintiff2respondent has proved his ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 31.05.2002, and thus, possession shall follow the ownership.

¶30

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶31

¶32

��

¶33

Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:

¶34

i) Whether a Vendor can pass on a better title than the one he had to the vendee?

¶35

ii) Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are based on misreading of the evidence particularly that of the Local Commissioner DW25, the plaintiff himself and other defendant witnesses and hence a perverse finding of fact?

¶36

iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff could be decreed merely by recording that the defence of the defendants is weak or the plaintiff is supposed to stand on his own legs?

¶37

iv) Whether the first appellate Court can reverse the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court without even discussing and reversing the reasoning given by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?

¶38

v) Whether the findings of the learned first appellate Court are against the evidence on record and thus perverse findings of facts?

¶39

However, learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the fact that another Civil Suit filed on behalf of the defendant2

¶40

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶41

¶42

��

¶43

appellants for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 31.05.2002 executed by the previous owner of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff2respondent was illegal, null and void, and not binding upon his rights; was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraiangarh vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2010 and even first appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012. Further, it is also not in dispute that RSA No.2300 of 2013 filed against the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the Courts below has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2013 holding that the appellant has failed to prove his ownership over the suit property and once he has failed to set up and prove his title over the suit property, he could not have challenged the sale deed in question.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court in RSA No.2300 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out as to how the substantial questions of law, as raised, do arise in this appeal.

¶45

Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.

Dismissed.

��#��#�� 

�%&��$��'� ��

Singh Rattan Pal 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Seo Singh and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seo Singh and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Singh Vs Kulwant Singh and Anr.

Dayal Singh Vs Avtar Singh & Anr.

Bambi Bai Vs State of Haryana

Devinder Kumar and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corp. of India

Narinder Paul Rana Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Charan Singh & Sons and Ors. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.