Dismissed

Inderpal v. Lalit and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC25 May 2018RSA/1183/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In regular second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings of fact by courts below that the plaintiff could not claim rights in property inherited by Savitri, as she failed to transfer her share after her father's death and a prior settlement was found not bona fide.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed.

Inderpal Vs Lalit and Another — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Order:25.05.2018

Inderpal

..Appellant

Versus

Lalit and another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶14

Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrents findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

¶15

The dispute in the present case is with regard to the property which was inherited by Savitri @ Savita on the death of her father Sh. Deep Chand. Plaintiff built up his entire case on the basis of an admitted written statement filed by Savitri @ Savita along with 2 other family members, namely, Hoshiari and Lalli in Civil Suit No.367 of 1998, decided on 06.06.2000. In the aforesaid written statement, defendant Savitri @ Savita had admitted that in a family settlement, her share of the property had fallen to the share of plaintiff. However, a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment establishes that the aforesaid family settlement was not found to be bonafide and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. It is further not

¶16

Naresh Kumar 2018.06.04 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

-2-

¶18

RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

in dispute that thereafter two ladies Smt. Lalli and Hoshiari transferred their shares to the plaintiff but Savitri @ Savita did not transfer the property. After the death of Savitri @ Savita , present suit was filed.

¶20

Both the courts after examining the evidence available on the file, have held that in view of the previous judgment passed by the court dated 06.06.2000, plaintiff cannot claim any right, title or interest in the property, which was inherited by Savitri@ Savita from Deep Chand.

¶21

In view thereof, there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

¶22

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶23

May 25, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶24

Naresh Kumar 2018.06.04 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Inderpal v. Lalit and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderpal v. Lalit and Another

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

Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sukhwinder Singh

Naresh Vs Roshni & Anr.

Sunehri Devi and Ors. Vs Ravinder Singh and Ors.

Randhir Kaur Vs Balwinder Kaur and Ors.

Ranbir Singh Dhiman and Sons Vs Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Ors.

Harinder Singh and Another Vs Darshan Singh Mann and Others