Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Kaur vs Tej Kaur & Ors on 17 October, 2014
CR No.7134 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.7134 of 2014
Date of decision: 17.10.2014
Mukhtiar Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
Tej Kaur and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN
PARSOON
Present: Mr. R.V.S Chugh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.(Oral)
1. Dismissal of the application to lead additional evidence vide order of 11.9.2014 forms genesis of this revision petition preferred by the plaintiff, petitioner herein. Sale-deed dated 30.12.2010 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 and transfer-deed dated 9.5.2011 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 have been impugned by the plaintiff in this suit claiming the property to be owned by joint Hindu family wherein she has claimed 1/7th share therein. During the cross-examination of Balwinder Singh (DW2), husband and power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 vendee, he had deposed that at the time of sale deed he had taken the money from his commission agent Makhan Lal of Anaj Mandi, Mansa, though witness Balwinder Singh DW2 has been cross-examined at length by the plaintiff so as to impeach his credit, the plaintiff seeks to examine commission agent Makhan Lal in a bid to repudiate credit worthiness of Balwinder Singh (DW2).
2. The lower Court referring to the written statement furnished BRIJ MOHAN 2014.10.17 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7134 of 2014 -2- by defendant No.4 has noticed that consistent stand of the vendor is that he had received the market price of the land and further that some portion of amount out of the sale consideration was paid by husband of defendant No.1 namely Balwinder Singh on 29.12.2010. It has also been clarified by him that he had sold the land so as to repay the loan of bank as also to meet out his domestic needs. Ranjit Singh, an official of the bank appearing as DW1 has corroborated the version of Balwinder Singh regarding clearance of the bank dues. Merely because Balwinder Singh has deposed the source of his money having come from Makhan Lal commission agent, is not a circumstance to further extend the matter particularly when he as well as Ranjit Singh have already been cross examined at length by the plaintiff.
3. The lower Court in a well written order has explained each and every enquiry and curiosity of the plaintiff has been fully answered therein. The case is now fixed for evidence in rebuttal and for arguments but the endeavour of the plaintiff is merely to delay and dilate the matter though it pertains to the year 2011 and has already become old.
4. No ground is made out to interfere in the well written and well explained order of the lower Court.
5. Dismissed.
17.10.2014 (Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
Brij Judge
BRIJ MOHAN
2014.10.17 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh