Dismissed

Somoti Since Deceased Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Sunita & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2018RSA/1446/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a sale deed and seeking an injunction, the single-judge High Court dismissed the second appeal. The court held that the appellants failed to prove fraud under Order VI Rule 4 CPC and found no cogent reasons for condoning the 184-day delay in filing.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit; no injunction was granted.

Somoti Since Deceased Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Sunita… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1446 of 2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.1446 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.10.12.2018

¶5

Somoti (since deceased) through LRs and others ....Appellants

¶6

¶7

Sunita and another ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

-.-

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶12

In pursuance of order dated 30.10.2018, costs of `2500/has been deposited vide receipt No.B/11817 dated 03.12.2018.

¶13

The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in claiming declaration seeking relief of injunction by laying challenge to the registered sale deed dated 02.11.2006 alleged executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1.

¶14

It was alleged that Moola, husband and father of the appellants-plaintiffs was the owner of land measuring 79 kanals. He died on 11.08.1970 and left behind his wife Somoti and two daughters Angoori and Rajwati. The plaintiffs were flabbergasted by noticing defendant No.1 alleged herself to be daughter to Moola propounded the impugned sale deed without consideration as fraud had been played upon Somoti, who was an old and illiterate person.

¶15

Defendant No.1 alleged that the sale deed was for valuable consideration of `4,30,000/-, which was paid to the plaintiffs and was attested by two witnesses. Defendant No.2 denied that plaintiffs inherited ½ share of Moola.

¶16

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA No.1446 of 2017 (O&M) -2-

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that factum of Sunita being daughter of Moola has been belied through the testimony of PW1, who brought on record PW1/A, death certificate to establish that Moola had died on 11.08.1970 whereas birth certificate of Sunita proved on record revealed that she was born on 08.12.1976. Even the Lambardar, attesting witness of the sale deed was not coherent and consistent as he did not know Moola and many other things. Ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation, thus, proved on record despite that Courts below have dismissed the suit.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that appellants-plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove ingredients of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC as registration clerk of the sale deed has also been brought on record to establish the factum of sale deed. Somoti had become the absolute owner on demise of Moola. It is common practice amongst persons, who first enter into document and resile by taking pleas. Even if Sunita was not daughter of Moola, it would not make any difference, for, it was a direct sale by Somoti in her favour, which was not of entire land but only a piece of land measuring 13 kanals 4 marlas. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove non-receipt of the sale consideration.

¶20

The appeal is accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay of 184 days in filing the appeal. No cogent and plausible reasons have been given for condonation of delay.

¶21

No ground for interference is made out, much less, no

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

-3-

¶24

RSA No.1446 of 2017 (O&M)

¶25

substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 10, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.07 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Somoti Since Deceased Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Sunita & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somoti Since Deceased Thr Lrs & Ors. v. Sunita & Anr.

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

M/S Pamwi Tissues Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S Universal Sales Corporation and Ors.

Rakesh and Ors. Vs Jagdish and Ors.

Jagbir Singh Vs Satpaul Singh

Sunita Dvi and Ors. Vs Sandeep and Ors.

Ratan Singh Vs Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs Amar Ahuja