Pehlad Singh v. Ranjeet Singh

RSA No.2918 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2918 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.06.03.2019 Pehlad Singh ...Appellant Vs Ranjeet Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.7875-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 60 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.2918 of 2016 The short point involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant-plaintiff can be permitted to claim declaration being owner in possession with consequential relief of injunction in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals 13 marlas simply on the ground that defendant had lost the right of redemption by lapse of period of redemption and the suit would be maintainable, the answer is 'no', in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram Vs. Sheo Ram 2014 (9) SCC 185 .

Mr. Bhandari submits that the plaintiff is not in possession as the property has been sold. This is all the more reason that such a declaration cannot be granted, for, plaintiff admitted himself to be mortgagee.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.03.11 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.2918 of 2016 (O&M) -2In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 06, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.03.11 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document