Ajit Singh And Another v. Ujjal Singh

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Review Application No. RS-34 of 2020 In Regular Second Appeal No. 514 of 2000 Date of Decision: 28.04.2021 Ajit Singh and Another ... Applicant(s)

Versus

Ujjal Singh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

By this order, the application to review the judgment dated 21.05.2020 shall stand disposed of.

2.

This Bench has heard learned counsel for the parties. 3.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that there is a patent error in the judgment as while deciding question No. 2, this Court had reversed the finding of the first Appellate Court. He, hence, contends that consequently, the decree passed by the first Appellate Court was required to be modified.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent contends that there is no error in the judgment passed. 5.

While deciding the regular second appeal on 21.05.2020, this Bench had framed the following questions:

"1.

Whether a member of the family, who is not party to a civil Court judgement & decree passed under the DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.05.12 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Review Application No. RS-34 of 2020 In Regular Second Appeal No. 514 of 2000 provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC while asserting factually incorrect facts is bound by the same? 2.

Whether in absence of evidence to link/connect the sale consideration received while disposing of the alleged ancestral property, subsequent purchase made by the common ancestor can be held to be Joint Hindu Family Co-parcenary property?"

6.

While deciding the question No.1, the findings of the learned first Appellate Court were upheld. However, while deciding the question No.2, the findings of the learned first Appellate Court were reversed. Still further, it was noticed that the property detailed under Clause (d) of the caption of the plaint is the self-acquired property of Ajit Singh, defendant No.1.

7.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, as a logical conclusion, the decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court was required to be modified qua the properties covered by Clause (a), (b) and (c) of the caption of the plaint. Hence, the last penultimate para of the judgment is modified and declared that the properties under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the caption of the plaint were self acquired properties . With this modification, the review application is disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 28, 2021 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.05.12 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document