Single-judge order dismissing a regular second appeal on merits regarding a declaration of coparcenary and sale deeds, coupled with an order condoning delay in filing the appeal application (C.M. No. 17514-C-2016).
Second appeal dismissed; application for condonation of delay allowed.
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.
-1-
RSA No.6712 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.6712 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order: 20.07.2018
Jagdish Singh
..Appellant
Versus
Govinda @ Gobind Singh (since deceased) through his LRs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff is coparcener in the property to the extent of 1/6th share. Plaintiff also challenged the sale deeds executed by defendant no.1, his father, in favour of defendant no.2 i.e. Brother-Kuldip Singh.
Both the courts on appreciation of evidence have found that the plaintiff failed to prove that at any time co-parcenary existed. The courts have further found that defendant no.1-Gobinda @ Gobind Singh, father of the plaintiff used to reside with Kuldip Singh and Jagdish Singh, the plaintiff-appellant, did not take care of him. Sufficient evidence has been brought on record to prove that it is Kuldeep Singh, who was taking care of Gobinda @ Gobind Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant no.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant, although, made sincere
Naresh Kumar 2018.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.6712 of 2016 (O&M)
attempt, however, could not point out any perversity or illegality in the judgments passed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not point out any substantive misreading or non-reading of evidence, as appreciated by the courts below.
Therefore, this court does not find any good ground to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
C.M.No.17514-C-2016
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 149 days in re-filing the appeal.
For reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by
an affidavit, the delay of 149 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
C.M.No.17515-C-2016
No order is required to be passed since the appeal has already
been decided on merits.
July 20, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Naresh Kumar 2018.07.24 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of fact that co-parcenary did not exist is a fit matter for appellate interference.
Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal should be condoned.
Jagdish Singh
Govinda @ Gobind Singh, through his LRs
ANIL KSHETARPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
