Jasbir Inder Singh vs Iqbal Mohammad & Anr on 1 December, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jasbir Inder Singh vs Iqbal Mohammad & Anr on 1 December, 2015

Bench: Amit Rawal

            RSA No.2258 of 2014 (O&M)                                        1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH


                                                      RSA No.2258 of 2014 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 01.12.2015

            Jasbir Inder Singh                                         ... Appellant
                                           Vs.


            Iqbal Mohammad and another                                 ... Respondents

            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

            1.         Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
                       see judgment?
            2.         To be referred to reporters or not?
            3.         Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

            Present:- Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate
                      for the appellant.

            AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

C.M.No.5465-C of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 80 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RSA No.2258 of 2014 (O&M The appellant-plaintiff is in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,62,030/- + Rs.7970/-), with further interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit, has been dismissed.

Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, learned counsel appearing on SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.12.05 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2258 of 2014 (O&M) 2 behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that suit for recovery aforementioned was filed on the basis of the lease deed dated 11.05.2002 entered into between the parties to the lis. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that lease deed for a period of 12 months required registration. Once the execution of the lease deed has been admitted, there is illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by both the Courts below, much less, substantial question of law arises to be adjudicated by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and appraised the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

Plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the lease deed by examining the attesting witnesses. It is settled law that lease deed beyond 11 months requires registration as per Registration Act. In a suit for recovery claiming arrears of lease amount, it is essential and necessary requirement of law that bank statement or any mode or evidence could have been brought and proved on record. In the absence of such evidence, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit and appeal.

In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by both the Courts below, based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less, no substantial question of law arise to be adjudicated by this Court.

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.12.05 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2258 of 2014 (O&M) 3

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 01, 2015 savita SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.12.05 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court