R.S.A No.1589 of 2007 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : September 04, 2009
1. R.S.A No.1589 of 2007 (O&M)
Ajmer Singh vs Tarlok Singh and others.
2. R.S.A No.1620 of 2007 (O&M)
Ajmer Singh vs Karnail Singh and others.
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.1589 and 1620 of 2007, as
they arise from the same suit and against the same judgment and decree.
For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.1589 of
2007.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned
lower appellate Court allowing the appeal of respondents No.1 to 3 thereby
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the sale
deed executed by Gurmail Kaur was in excess of her share.
It is not disputed that the property in dispute was owned by two
R.S.A No.1589 of 2007 (O&M) ::2::
brothers, namely, Amar Singh and Bakhtaur Singh. Appellant is one of the
sons of Amar Singh. Bakhtaur Singh had only one daughter viz. Gurmail
Kaur (since deceased) whose legal representatives are the respondents
herein. The case set up in the plaint was that after the death of Bakhtaur
Singh, a dispute had arisen regarding his inheritance and in some
compromise, out of his land measuring 48 bighas odd , land measuring 20
bighas odd was given to Gurmail Kaur and 28 bighas odd was given to the
two sons of Amar Singh. However, in the revenue record, the entire share
of Bakhtaur Singh was shown as having been inherited by Gurmail Kaur. It
was further pleaded that Gurmail Kaur sold more than 28 bighas of land
and, therefore, the sale deeds were void.
The learned trial Court, on the basis of the mutation of
Bakhtaur Singh, decreed the suit. However, the learned lower appellate
Court holding that there was no occasion or reason shown for the mutation,
dismissed the suit and held that the appellant had not proved that how and in
what circumstances the mutation to the extent of 28 bighas odd was
entered/sanctioned in his favour.
The following questions have been raised :-
” a) Whether the findings of learned lower appellate
Court are without jurisdiction ?
b) Whether the findings of learned lower appellate
Court are against the record ?
c) Whether the learned lower appellate Court did not
decide the appeal issue-wise as mandated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court ?
d) Whether the learned lower appellate Court
R.S.A No.1589 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::
exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief which was not
even asked for ?”
No arguments have been addressed on question no. (a). With
regard to question No. (b), no record has been shown except for the disputed
mutation on the basis of which it can not be held that the case of the
appellant is proved. With regard to question No. (c), the main issue in this
case was with regard to the allegations of the appellant that he along with
his brother had succeeded to the share of their uncle Bakhtaur Singh without
there being any document on record in this regard. Once that main issue is
held against the appellant, the arguments raised on question no. (c) even if
technically correct would not impact the merits of the case. No arguments
have been addressed on question no.(d).
Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the
appellant, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending
civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) September 04, 2009. JUDGE `kk'