Allowed an application to condone a 23-day delay in filing an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal against concurrent findings that the family settlement was nullified by a non-contested sale decree, citing evidence of collusion and explanation contrary to the appellant's claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.2684 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2684 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.30.11.2018
Ranjit Singh
...Appellant
Vs
Surjit Kaur (deceased) through LRs and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.7173-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 23 days
in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.2684 of 2016
The regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit for declaration and permnanent injunction laying challenge to the sale deed dated 15.02.2005 executed in pursuance to the judgment and decree dated 26.09.1994 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 in suit for specific performance, has been dismissed.
The plaintiff grandson of defendant No.1 alleged that owing to the family settlement, property had fallen to his share and in such circumstances, the grand mother could not have alienated the property in the manner and mode.
The aforementioned suit was contested by defendant
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.2684 of 2016 (O&M)
No.1 but expired during the pendency of the suit and defendant Nos.2 to 4 proceeded ex parte. However, defendant No.5 contested the suit on the premise that defendant No.1 had entered into agreement dated 19.07.1988 and when the part performance was refused, decree for specific performance was passed, which attained finality.
Mr. Parvinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Courts below have gravely erred in not appreciating that defendant No.1 did not deny family settlement and in such circumstances, right which had already accrued in favour of plaintiff could not have been taken away by virtue of the decree aforesaid. The transaction was thus liable to be set aside.
I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable as apparently it appears to be a case of collusion. The suit was filed only in the year 2007 after two years of execution of the sale deed in pursuance of decree dated 26.09.1994. The non-contest of defendant No.2 before the court below is also testimony to that effect.
In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant to form a different opinion than the one already arrived at by both the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The regular second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 30, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case of collusion bars interference with the concurrent findings that the suit was set aside.
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the validity of the family settlement versus the decree for specific performance.
Ranjit Singh
Surjit Kaur (deceased) through LRs and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
