REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HARPAL SINGH Appellant

V/S

Rajinder Kaur And Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BHARTU V/S. RAM SARUP [REFERRED TO]
CHANAN SINGH V/S. PIRTAM KAUR AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL AND OTHERS ETC. V/S. BALWANT ALIAS BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND HEIRS AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
P. VELAYUDHAN V/S. KURUNGOT IMBICHIA MOIDU'S SON AYAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V/S. AMANDEEP SINGH GILL [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL MAHTON VS. KAMLA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD BAQAR VS. NAIM UN NISA BIBI [REFERRED TO]
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. K C ALEXANDER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL VS. ANWAR ALI [REFERRED TO]
KARBALAI BEGUM VS. MOHAMMAD SAYEED [REFERRED TO]
BAL KISHAN VS. OM PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ZAINULABUDEEN VS. SAYED AHMED MOHIDEEN [REFERRED TO]
VIDYAWATI VS. MAN MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DEVI ALIAS VIDYA VATI VS. PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. GUJJAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. GUJJAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. JAGADISH KAKITA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. JAGADISH KAKITA [REFERRED TO]
M MEENAKSHI VS. METADIN AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
DES RAJ VS. BHAGAT RAM [REFERRED TO]
SUMTIBAI VS. PARAS FINANCE CO [REFERRED TO]
HEMAJI WAGHAJI JAT VS. BHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN [REFERRED TO]
BACHHAJ NAHAR VS. NILIMA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MEHDI HASAN VS. RAM KER [REFERRED TO]
BALA DOLA VS. HEERALAL URAJAN [REFERRED TO]
KODIYAN VS. KARAMBI [REFERRED TO]
RALLI VS. SATINDERJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR ALIAS BALBIR SINGH VS. OM PARKASH [REFERRED TO]
GULWANT SINGH VS. AJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHRI AMAR DASS JUNEJA VS. SHRI TEJ BHAN DEV [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. KARTAR KAUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, at the instance of an unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below, whereby suit of plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed by the learned trial court and was upheld by the learned first appellate court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, are that Harpal Singh had initially filed a suit against his mother Harnam Kaur and his sister Pritam Kaur, but when during the pendency of the suit Harnam Kaur died, the other two sisters i.e. Rajinder Kaur and Balwant Kaur were impleaded as her legal representatives.

(3.) The suit land was claimed as exclusive ownership of the plaintiff and it was asserted that the mother got mutation of one half share of the land sanctioned in her name on the basis of an alleged gift deed made by the plaintiff in her favour in the year 1955. Harnam Kaur had thereafter executed two sale deeds, on 19th of July, 1978 and 17th of August, 1978 by which she sold her one half share of land to Pritam Kaur a daughter. The plaintiff who had been serving in Madhya Pradesh came to know of the sale-deeds in the year 1979 and thereafter filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the entire land measuring 112 kanals 9 marlas and that he had never gifted one share of this land to Harnam Kaur and the mutation in her favour on the basis of oral gift is illegal and void and not binding upon him. He also sought a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.

Click here to view full judgment.

HARPAL SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address