Dismissed

Raj Rani and Anr. v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2018RSA/1984/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellants' challenge to a decree granting declaration and permanent injunction regarding property sales alleged to be fraudulent. The single-judge bench held no illegality or perversity existed as the impugned order was well-founded.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the decree of the suit was dismissed, upholding the declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.

Raj Rani and Anr. Vs Rajinder… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1984 of 2016 (O&M) #1#

¶2

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

¶3

RSA No.1984 of 2016 (O&M)

Raj Rani and Anr.

...Appellant

Versus

Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

Date of Order: 13.12.2018

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)

¶12

Appellants-defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the courts below whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.

¶13

Respondent-plaintiff claimed aforesaid relief on the premise that a plot measuring 180 sq yards was owned by Shyam Lal Dhiman, which was purchased by Parveen Kumar, the plaintiff, defendant No.2-Tirath Ram and Sanjay Kumar in different shares. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 sold 35 sq yards to defendant No.5 vide sale deed dated 20.1.2005. Parveen Kumar and Sanjay Kumar sold their shares i.e 85 sq yards to defendant Nos.3 & 4 vide sale deed dated 23.6.2005 and similarly, defendant Nos.2 to 4 sold 140 sq yards to defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 25.5.2006, which was result of fraud and misrepresentation qua share of the plaintiff i.e 27-1/2 sq yards as defendant Nos.2 to 4 were co-owners to the extent of 112-1/2 sq yards MANOJ KUMARand in essence, the sale was in accordance with their shares. 2018.12.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

#2#

¶15

RSA No.1984 of 2016 (O&M)

¶16

Upon notice, defendants opposed the suit by claiming the plea of bonafide purchaser.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the courts below have erroneously decreed the suit as the suit was filed in the year 2007 whereas sale deed pertains to year 2005 and 2006. There is already partition amongst co-sharers.

¶18

I am afraid that the said argument is not sustainable as the sale deed would reflect that the total area of plot is 180 sq yards and their share holdings was not more than 112-1/2 sq yards and therefore sale of excess area was 27-1/2 sq yards. Total of 140 i.e 112-1/2 sq yards plus 27-1/2 sq yards comes to 140 sq. yards.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, no illegality or perversity has been committed by both the courts below much less no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

December 13, 2018 (AMIT RAWAL ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR 2018.12.19 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Rani and Anr. v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rani and Anr. v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

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

Parveen Kumar Vs Satish Kumar Arya and Ors.

Mohammad Bashiruden Vs Surjit Singh & Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs Satish Kumar Sharma

Surmukh Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Dalip Singh Vs Balbir Singh Th Lrs Ramdei and Ors.

Jodh Singh Thru Lrs. Gurnek Singh and Ors. Vs Gopal Singh Thru Lrs. Jagir Kaur and Ors.