hanan Singh v. Surjit Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
RSA No.789 of 1981
Chanan Singh
v.
Surjit Singh
{Decided on 09/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Second Appeal--Mixed question of facts and law--Argument that raises mixed question of facts and law cannot be raised for first time in second appeal.
Family settlement--Ignorance of rights flowing from Hindu Succession Act cannot be ground to set aside a family settlement.
(A) Civil Procedure--Second Appeal--Mixed question of facts and law--Both parties admit voluntary execution of family settlement--Only plea raised that document is not binding as it was executed in ignorance of rights under Hindu Succession Act--No objection raised at any stage of proceedings that document could not read into evidence for want of registration--Failure to register document and its consequences are mixed questions of fact and law must be pleaded and based upon specific and material evidence--Question of non-registration of settlement cannot be urged for first time during argument in second appeal. (Para 14)
(B) Land and Property Law--Adverse Possession--Family settlement--Respondent came in possession in 1957 under colour of title pursuant to family settlement--It was only after an attempt was made to dispossess them in 1964 they could assert that their possession had became open hostile and in opposition to possessory and proprietary right of appellants--Their possession from 1957-64 was at best permissive--Suit for ejectment and possession filed in 1972 before their alleged hostile possession had ripened into ownership--Finding that respondent have become owners by adverse possession is illegal and liable to be reversed. (Para 15)
(C) Family settlement--Family settlement binds rights of parties--Ignorance of rights flowing from Hindu Succession Act cannot be ground to set aside a family settlement--Family settlement would operate as an estoppel preventing parties thereto from disavowing its contents. (Paras 16, 17 & 18)
----------------
Sudarshan Kumar Bhatia v. Dharam Pal Sharma
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.3351 of 1996 (O&M)
Sudarshan Kumar Bhatia
v.
Dharam Pal Sharma
{Decided on 29/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Specified landlord--Section 13-A of Act could be attracted only if any portion of building or building in hands of tenant is for residential purpose--If property is let for non-residential purpose and such user is not prohibited in terms of any zoning requirement application under Section 13-A cannot avail to ‘specified land lord’--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-A. (Para 10)
------------------
Dharam Singh v. Bijender minor
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 764
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.1171 of 1991
Dharam Singh
v.
Bijender minor
{Decided on 12/02/2009}
For the Appellants: Ms. Alka Sarin Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Will--Validity of--Merely because defendant is minor it cannot be said that he was in capable of rendering services to executant.
(A) Succession Law--Will--Validity of--Executor of Will categorically mentioned that will was executed due to love and affection and services rendered by defendant no.1--Merely because defendant no.1 is minor, it cannot be said that he was incapable of rendering services to executant--If the Will is proved on record contents thereof would show that will was for consideration of services rendered--|Succession Act, 1963, Section 63. (Para 13)
(B) Succession Law--Will--Validity of--Resjudicata--Previous litigation with respect to Will dated 2.2.1981 stood proved as per provisions of Section 63(c) of Succession Act--Judgment and decree earlier passed not disputed--Therefore, it cannot be said that Will was not proved as contended--|Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(C). (Para 18)
(C) Civil procedure--Second Appeal--Substantial question of law--Right of alienation of Jats governed by customary law stands already decided by Full Bench of High Court cannot be considered to be substantial question of law in appeal. (Para 19)
------------------