Inderpal v. Lalit And Another

RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Order:25.05.2018 Inderpal ..Appellant

Versus

Lalit and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate, for the respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrents findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the property which was inherited by Savitri @ Savita on the death of her father Sh. Deep Chand. Plaintiff built up his entire case on the basis of an admitted written statement filed by Savitri @ Savita along with 2 other family members, namely, Hoshiari and Lalli in Civil Suit No.367 of 1998, decided on 06.06.2000. In the aforesaid written statement, defendant Savitri @ Savita had admitted that in a family settlement, her share of the property had fallen to the share of plaintiff. However, a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment establishes that the aforesaid family settlement was not found to be bonafide and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. It is further not Naresh Kumar 2018.06.04 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA No.1183 of 2012 (O&M) -2in dispute that thereafter two ladies Smt. Lalli and Hoshiari transferred their shares to the plaintiff but Savitri @ Savita did not transfer the property. After the death of Savitri @ Savita , present suit was filed. Both the courts after examining the evidence available on the file, have held that in view of the previous judgment passed by the court dated 06.06.2000, plaintiff cannot claim any right, title or interest in the property, which was inherited by Savitri@ Savita from Deep Chand. In view thereof, there is no scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. The regular second appeal is dismissed.

May 25, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Naresh Kumar 2018.06.04 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh