Daya Nand vs Tale Ram & Others on 4 November, 2009

RSA No.417 of 2008                                             -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                    CM No.1278-C of 2008 &
                                    RSA No.417 of 2008
                                    Decided on : 04.11.2009


Daya Nand                                               ... Appellant

                             versus

Tale Ram & others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
          for the appellant.

          Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate
          for respondents No.1 & 3 to 7.

          Mr. A.K.Bura, Advocate
          for respondent No.2.

                             ****

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 appeal has been filed against the concurrent

judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the

appellant for prohibitory injunction against the respondents while

allowing the counter claim of the appellant regarding her

possession over the disputed house. It is not disputed that the

property in dispute was owned by Amar Singh. The contesting

respondents are his daughters. The appellant’s claim is that he

has purchased the property in dispute from the nephew of Amar

Singh. Both the Courts below found that the said nephew had no
RSA No.417 of 2008 -2-

right title in the interest of property. Any alienation made by him

would not have any effect on the rights of the contesting

respondents. The following questions have been proposed:

i) Whether the respondent No.2 was owner of the

disputed house?

ii)Whether the respondent No.2 has executed an

agreement to sell the said house in dispute in favour

of the appellant?

iii)Whether the respondent No.2 executed a receipt dt.

28.08.2003 regarding receipt of earnest money?

iv)Whether Rakesh is legally entitled to transfer his

house in favour of the respondent No.2?

v)Whether the appellant is owner of the disputed

house?

vi)Whether counter claim filed by the respondents is

maintainable?

All the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned

counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that

the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are

based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so

perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of

CPC.

Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are

dismissed.

November 04, 2009                            (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                            JUDGE