Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Ch. Kesho Dass (Deceased) Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Lochan Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
Defendant No.1 (Ch. Kesho Dass) (since expired and now being represented by legal representatives) has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1990 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff (Lochan Singh) against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1988 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Pathankot, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and possession by redemption was dismissed, thereby decreeing the said suit.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. Ch. Kesho Dass, as noticed by the first appellate Court, was a big landlord and essentially an influential person of the area. The issue pertains to 227 kanals 3 marlas of land (fully described in the plaint) situated in Village Daulatpur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (at the relevant time Pathankot was in District Gurdaspur) (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land').
4. Plaintiff (Lochan Singh) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the suit land and that defendant
The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence in mortgage redemption proceedings and the preservation of mortgage integrity throughout contested litigations.
The plaintiffs' suit was barred by law of limitation and estoppel, and the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiffs were rejected.
Point of law: Rightly observed by both the Courts below the evidence let in by the appellants to establish this oral sale, gets excluded in view of the prohibition under Section 92 of the Indian Evid....
A plaintiff cannot establish ownership of immovable property without a registered deed, even if in physical possession, as per Sections 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 34 of the Specif....
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
A suit to establish rights over ancestral properties can be dismissed as time-barred if filed after the limitation period, regardless of claims of joint family ownership.
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
