Dismissed

Narinder Singh v. Dalip Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2015RSA/2734/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding an ejectment suit involving claims of benami property and document forgery, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that admitted signatures do not validate disputed recitals when the document exhibits clear internal inconsistencies and lack of original production. The delay in filing was condoned.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; Trial Court's finding on document forgery affirmed; Delay condoned.

Narinder Singh Vs Dalip Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.2734 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2734 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.18.09.2015

Narinder Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

Dalip Singh

......Respondent

Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶17

Delay of 195 days in filing the second appeal is condoned.

¶18

The plaintiff who filed suit for ejectment of the son from a

¶19

room when the defence by the son was that the property did not belong to the father and that it was purchased in his name by his wife as benami . At the time of trial, this defence was given up and the defendant wanted to contend that there had been a compromise effected between parties and that in terms thereof, the property was allotted to be in possession of the defendant. The plaintiff denied that there was any such compromise. The defendant produced a photocopy of the same and there was no reason given for the non-prodecution of the original. The defendant was relying on the signature admitted at the time of cross-examination in the photocopy contained in the document. The Court reasoned that the signature in the document cannot prove the document on containing its recitals and he observed

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

-2-

¶22

RSA No.2734 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

that the signature portion had been transposed below the body of the document by inducting some chits or fold. The trial Judge observed that its finding against genuineness of the document was strengthed by the fact that date 28.03.2004 was seen in different hand in Ex.P1 and the photocopy made available by the counsel for the defendant. There was no signature of the Darshan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Surjit and Karnail on the photocopy which was made available in the Court. Finding enormous fallibilities in the document produced by the defendant, the Court found that it was not possible to accept the document and dismissed plaintiff's suit. This decision was affirmed in appeal.

¶24

The only point which is urged by the counsel is that the parties are close relatives and when the signature was admitted, the recital must also be taken as admitted. I reject this argument, since I find that the reasoning adopted by the trial Court was perfectly justified. There is no substantial question of law for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

September 18, 2015 Pankaj*

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Narinder Singh v. Dalip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder Singh v. Dalip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Singh Vs Rajbir & Ors.

Dhanpati & Ors. Vs Gurprit Singh & Ors.

Baljit Singh etc. Vs Pirthi Singh etc.

Avtar Singh Vs Allahabad Bank

Balwinder Singh Vs Bhajan Kaur and Anr.

Prem Devi and Others Vs Kesar and Others