2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
RSA No.1401 of 2003
Kurdia
v.
Rameshwar Dass & Ors.
{Decided on 15/01/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Khetarpal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gift--Immovable property--In the absence of any cogent evidence in proof of delivery and acceptance of actual physical possession of the property under the gift; mere entry of mutation is not sufficient.
(A) Transfer of Property Act,1882, S. 122 & 123--Gift--Gift of immovable property without delivery and acceptance of possession is no valid gift--In the absence of any cogent evidence in proof delivery and acceptance of actual physical possession of the property under the gift, mere entry of mutation is not sufficient. (P. 39, 44 & 45)
(B) Civil Procedure Code,1908, S.11--Explanation IV--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O. 41, R.22 and 33--Resjudicata--Appeal--If the earlier decision on the issue is still a subject matter of pending appeal, it cannot be said that the subsequent suit was barred by the principle of res judicata as the decision had not attained finality. (P.10 to 43)
(C) Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 65--Suit for possession filed by the plaintiff after 18 years--Suit held to be time barred.
----------------
