← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/3360/2013dismissed

Charan Singh v. Balbir Singh And ORS

2015-09-01Mr. Justice Harbans Singh Rai2 pages

RSA No.3360 of 2013 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3360 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.09.2015 Charan Singh .......Appellant

Versus

Balbir Singh and others ......Respondents

Present:

Mr. Kr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The plaintiff's suit for a relief that the revenue entries had been wrongly made in relation to the property held by him in specified khasra numbers came to be dismissed on a plea by the defendants that the plaintiff is not owner of any extent of property and he had sold the property in their favour under two transactions: One through a sale deed dated 2.6.1997 in respect of 18 marlas of land and another through the document dated 9.1.2007 in respect of remaining extent of property. The Court also referred to the fact that there was already a suit in respect of the very same subject matter, the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff had made no case for asserting that the revenue entries had been wrongly made.

2.

The counsel for the appellant-plaintiff reiterates by way of argument that the property which was sold to the defendant on PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.03 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.3360 of 2013 (O&M) -209.01.2007 was in respect of property which was not in suit and the Court had completely mis-read the evidence. There is no mention to point out to me anywhere in the grounds of appeal that the plaintiff had sold the property under Ex.D2 with reference to some other property. When the two Courts below consistently held that whatever property that he had, had already been sold and his own suit for injunction earlier had been dismissed, the plaintiff has no legs to stand before this Court to point out any substantial question of law. There exists none. 3.

The second appeal is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 01, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.03 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document