Dismissed

Kulwant Singh v. Jagjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2018RSA/3633/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed an appeal challenging concurrent lower court judgments that refused specific performance of an agreement to sell. The lower courts found infirmities including lack of knowledge of the property and typist, though the appellant contested a mention of his death.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The primary case order stood as dismissed on merits.

Kulwant Singh Vs Jagjit Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

RSA-3633-2016 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

245

¶5

RSA-3633-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.3.2018

Kulwant Singh

....Appellant

Jagjit Singh

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)

¶15

At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant states that it was wrongly mentioned that the appellant has died, actually the appellant is alive.

¶16

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing a suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2003.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had denied the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2003. The appellant and one marginal witness had appeared. Both the Courts below found that there were many infirmities in the case of the appellant. They found that appellant had no knowledge about the property in dispute. They found that site plan was not as per the ground. They found that neither the appellant knew the name of the typist who got typed the agreement nor that typist

¶18

Anuradha 2018.03.19 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-3633-2016 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

came to depose that respondent had signed the same after going through the contents. The stamp vendor was also not examined. They found that appellant had not proved the source from where he received the money which he paid to the respondent.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is so palpably perverse or erroneous so as to justify interference. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶23

Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

13.3.2018 (AJAY TEWARI) anuradha JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No

¶26

Anuradha 2018.03.19 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kulwant Singh v. Jagjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Singh v. Jagjit 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

Punjab State and Others Vs M/S C&C Construction Ltd. and Others

Gurdhian Singh Vs Labh Singh and Ors.

Surender Pal and Others Vs Gulab Singh and Others

Jang Bahadur Vs Ms Ganda Mal Piare Lal

Suman & Another Vs State of Punjab & Others

Christeena & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.