This second appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. The High Court affirmed that since joint ownership and rent generation were admitted, the co-sharer had a right to half the rent, and no interference was warranted with lower courts' findings.
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.6571 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.6571 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.13.11.2018
Kulbir Singh and another
......Appellants
Vs
Sher Singh ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellants.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.17196-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 317 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
C.M. No.17197-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 24 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.6571 of 2016
The appellants-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit for rendition of account of rent in respect of room/office shown in red colour in the site plan.
The plaintiff filed the suit aforementioned on the premise that one room was rented out at monthly rent of 1000/- and the same was in possession of the defendants. However, during the life time of Piara Singh, who was earlier in possession, a sum of 500/- per month with mutual consent was paid but after death of Piara Singh,
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.14 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.6571 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
defendants have been receiving 1000/- per month but not paid half share to the plaintiff i.e. 500/- as Piara Singh and Sher Singh were joint owners to the extent of half share.
The appellants-defendants opposed the suit though admitted jointness of the ownership of the property but denied that any amount was outstanding.
On the preponderance of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit entitled the plaintiff to a sum of 1000/- per month from 11.05.2002 till filing of the suit i.e. amounting to 36,000/-. The appeal laid before the lower Appellate Court by the defendants was also dismissed.
Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality and perversity in decreeing the suit, as the case set out by the plaintiff was based upon falsehood. The property was not partitioned and therefore, plaintiff had no right to claim half of the rent, despite the fact that rate of rent was not denied. No suggestion was put with regard to rate of rent. The registered will dated 22.08.1997 was cancelled by the grandfather of the appellantsdefendants. All these factors have gone unnoticed.
I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Agnihotri is not sustainable as the factum of the property being joint has been admitted, much less, leasing out of the same for generating rent. In such circumstances, other co-sharer definitely had right to half rent which was earlier being paid and when denied, filed suit for rendition of account.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.14 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.6571 of 2016 (O&M) -3-
In view of the aforementioned, no fault can be found with the concurrent finding of fact which is based upon correct appreciation of fact and law, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 13, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.14 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere when the appellants do not raise any substantial question of law.
Whether a co-sharer has a right to claim half the rent from other co-sharers.
Whether the concurrent finding of the lower courts appreciates the facts correctly.
Kulbir Singh
Sher Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
