Back
ARUN MONGA
Sarabjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Kamaljit Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals before the trial Court.
2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, the defendant is in second appeal before this Court assailing the trial Court judgment and decree dated 30.09.2016, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017.
3. Briefly stated, succinct facts first, as noticed by Courts below. Plaintiff Kamaljit Singh purchased 5K-19M of land along with the share in electric motor connection from its previous owners Rajinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur (children of Harbhajan @ Gurbhajan Singh son of Naranjan Singh) vide registered sale deed No. 686 dated 23.05.2013. Plaintiff pleaded that he had also purchased another 5K-19M land along with share in the electric motor connection from one Balwant Singh son of Gurdev Singh vide registered sale-deed No. 3793 dated 24.01.2014, who had in turn purchasedthe said share from Baljinder Singh son of Harbhajan @ Gurbhajan Singh. Said Harbhajan Singh @ Gurbhajan Singh had four children, namely, Rajinder Singh, Jaswinder Kaur, Jasvir Singh and Baljinder Singh. Accordingly, the plaintiff
The main legal point established in the judgment is the categorization of the electric motor connection as immovable property under the Registration Act, 1908, and the implications of family settleme....
The High Court's jurisdiction in a Section 100 appeal is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
