Second appeal against dismissal of suit on merits. Court dismissed appeal as concurrent findings of facts by courts below were correct and no substantial question of law arose.
Second appeal dismissed.
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. 5127 of 2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 5127 of 2017 Date of decision : 20.03.2018
Kulwinder Singh
...Appellant
versus
Amrik Singh and anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
RITU BAHRI , J.
This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant (herein after to be referred as 'the appellant') has been dismissed.
The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that defendants-respondents have proved the F.I.R registered against him, which shows the bad intention of the appellant towards the family of the respondents and wants to unsurp their suit property. Further agreement to sell dated 30.10.2008 was duly proved by D.W.2 Kewal Singh, which shows that Amrik Singh has alienated his house to Avtar Kaur vide agreement to sell and later on a compromise was also effected in the shape of agreement dated 25.07.2009 between the parties (Ex D2. After agreement to sell, Avtar Kaur applied for allotment of the electricity connection in her name.
Gaurav Arora 2018.03.27 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No. 5127 of 2017
-2-
Once agreement dated 30.10.2008 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 qua the property in question has been duly proved as Ex 23, the suit of the appellant has rightly been dismissed. The appellant has also admitted the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and had admitted ownership of respondent No. 2 over the property in question. The witnesses of the appellant had admitted the claim raised by the respondents regarding previous ownership.
Accordingly, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both
the Courts below does not require any interference by this Court.
No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this
Court.
The appeal is dismissed.
20.03.2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Gaurav Arora 2018.03.27 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal requiring interference given the concurrent findings dismissed the suit.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for adjudication.
Kulwinder Singh
Amrik Singh
Avtar Kaur
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
