Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Puran – Appellant
Versus
Akhe Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exclusive ownership claim of plaintiffs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants contest ownership and validity of will. (Para 3) |
| 3. trial court finds validity of will; appellate court reverses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. high court disallows appeal based on factual findings. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
1. Plaintiffs are in appeal.
2. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are exclusive owners in possession of the agricultural land as detailed out in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that plaintiffs and the defendant are sons of Jawahara. Their father executed Will dated 22.05.1967 in favour of the plaintiffs. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants to the extent of 1/4th share on 28.08.1970, which was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father Jawahara used to cultivate the suit land, measuring 454 bighas and 19 biswas. During the life-time of Jawahara, defendant separated himself and was given 117 bighas and 07biswas of land. On 22.05.1967, Jawahara executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs. Jawahara died in the year 1969 and on the basis of the Will, plaintiffs inher
The Court upheld that factual findings by lower courts could only be interfered with for substantial legal errors, emphasizing strict adherence to evidence standards in ownership claims.
The Regular Second Appeal in Punjab is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 of the CPC, and minor irregularities do not invalidate a decree without proof of fraud.
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
