Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Balbir Singh vs Gian Singh & Ors on 30 October, 2015

Balbir Singh vs Jaswinder Kaur And Ors on 7 February, 2018

This order of mine shall dispose of above mentioned two Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 4790 and 4791 of 2011. The facts are being taken from RSA No. 4790 of 2011. The present RSA arose as a result of two civil suits i.e. Civil Suit No. 362 of 6.12.1999 titled as Jaswinder Kaur versus Sukhwinder Kaur and others (hereinafter referred to as the first suit) and other Civil Suit bearing No. 25T of 17.04.2000 titled as Balbir Singh v. Gian Kaur (now deceased and others)(hereinafter referred to as the second suit) which were consolidated and common judgment and decree was passed. In the first suit, Jaswinder Kaur claimed injunction against 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 13:57:53 ::: RSA No. 4790 of 2011 2 Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Balbir Singh (who is plaintiff in the second suit) and against Jarnail Singh and others for forcible interference and dispossession. However, during the pendency of this suit vide amendment the suit was converted into suit for possession. It was stated in the suit that Jaswinder Kaur had become owner of the house in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 29.11.1999 bearing No. 1442 executed by Gian Kaur which had forcibly been occupied by Jasbir Singh on the premise that Rattan Singh was the owner of the property and after his death the property devolved upon the heirs of Gian Kaur and she, on account of her own volition, transferred the same by registered sale deed ibid for a valuable consideration of Rs. 55,000/-. In second suit Balbir Singh plaintiff, whose wife Sukhwinder Kaur was arrayed as defendant No.1 in first suit, challenged the sale deed aforementioned on the ground that Gian Kaur did not have the title as the entire agricultural land was partitioned except the house which she had transferred by way of a family settlement dated 31.10.1996(Ex.D1) and had been in possession of the property, therefore, there was no occasion for dispossessing Jaswinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh. Apparently it was a dispute between the daughter-in-law and wives of Jasbir Singh and Balbir Singh sons of Gian Kaur, wife of Rattan Singh. The first suit was decreed whereas the second suit was dismissed. It is in this backdrop of the matter that the present Regular Second Appeals have been filed before this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

Kamla & Ors vs Radha Soami Satsang Beas Regd Society & ... on 10 December, 2025

13. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the suit for declaration challenging the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1991 was initially filed on 22.08.1997 (Civil Suit No. 338 of 1997). This suit was later withdrawn on TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.12.18 12:11 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 RSA-1106-2014 (O&M) and other connected cases 02.06.1999 with permission to file a fresh suit with better particulars. Subsequently, on 04.02.2000, the Civil suit No. 68 titled "Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs. Gian Singh and Ors." was filed. As per the pleadings in this suit, the appellants-plaintiffs sought a declaration regarding the sale deed on the grounds that fraud was committed on them while including the transfer of their rights to 102 kanals and 5 marlas of land, which was the shamlat deh land, however, the sale deed in question only concerned the alienation of land measuring 9 kanals and 19 marlas. In fact, the appellants-plaintiffs never disputed or denied the execution of the sale deed dated 11.06.1991. The only alleged fraud was the inclusion of rights under the shamlat deh. Throughout the plaint, the appellants-plaintiffs never disclosed the date or month when they became aware of the alleged fraud. Moreover, one of the plaintiffs, Soran Singh, who appeared as a witness (PW1), admitted that they became aware of the further alienation of the suit land in favour of respondent no. 7 in 1995 itself. In such circumstances, the suit for declaration filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) on 04.01.2000 was clearly barred by the limitation period. This is because the limitation period, under Article 56 read with Article 59 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act, 1963, is three years from the date when the fact of registration of such alleged forged instrument comes to his knowledge. Therefore, no interference was warranted on this point, especially considering the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1