Dismissed¶21

Raj Kumar Goyal v. Om Parkash and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025RSA/772/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular second appeal (RSA) dismissed by Punjab and Haryana High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J., 16.05.2025); plaintiff's challenge to sale deeds dated 01.02.1988 and 31.05.1993 on ground of impersonation fails; burden of proof on plaintiff to prove impersonation; defendants' direct evidence (marginal witnesses, broker) cogent and reliable; handwriting and fingerprint expert report; alleged diary; claim that plaintiff signed in English and not Devanagari/Hindi; suit for declaration with consequential permanent injunction; concurrent findings of Courts below upheld; suit filed 30.05.2018 after lapse of 30 years; pending miscellaneous applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None ¶21

Raj Kumar Goyal Vs Om Parkash and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA-772-2024 (O&M) -1-

¶2

134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA-772-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.05.2025

Raj Kumar Goyal

...Appellant

Vs.

Om Parkash and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The plaintiff assails the correctness of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing his suit for grant of decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

¶14

In substance, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the sale deed dated 01.02.1988 and 31.05.1993. Defendant No.1 purchased the property on 01.02.1988 from the plaintiff which in turn was sold to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 31.05.1993.

¶15

In order to prove the sale deed dated 01.02.1988, DW5-Sh. Krishan Kumar, marginal witness, Sh. Subhash Chander son of second marginal witness and broker, DW10-Sh. Gulshan Kumar was examined. The plaintiff relied upon his alleged diary and report of handwriting and fingerprint expert. The Courts have found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the sale deed dated 01.02.1988 was result of impersonation.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel representing the appellant at length and

¶17

NEERAJ 2025.05.21 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-772-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶19

with his able assistance perused the paper-book.

¶20

Learned counsel representing the appellant while referring to the report of the handwriting and fingerprint expert submits that the plaintiff has stated that he never signed in Devanagari (Hindi) and he used to sign in English. However, it was for the plaintiff to prove that the sale deed was executed by means of impersonation. The suit was filed on 30.05.2018 i.e. after a lapse of 30 years from the date of execution of the first sale deed. The argument of learned counsel representing the appellant lacks substance because direct evidence to prove the sale deed has been examined by the defendants, which has been found to be cogent and reliable.

¶21

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶22

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

16.05.2025		(A	NIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE
neeraj
	Whether speaking/reasoned :	Yes	No
	Whether Reportable :	Yes	No

¶25

NEERAJ 2025.05.21 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Kumar Goyal v. Om Parkash and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Goyal v. Om Parkash and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajinder Singh Vs Rubi Gupta and Ors.

Dev Rattan Vs Shiv Mandir Alias Gram Sudhar Samiti and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Nand Ram

Bhuvan Jain @ Babi N Vs Sunil Kumar and Another

Rajnish Puri and Another Vs Sanjay Mehta and Others

Baldev Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.