9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Karnail Singhplaintiff-appellant No.1. The plaintiffs alleged that suit land measuring 72 kanals 13 marlas was ancestral in the hands of Bishan Singh. The plaintiffs constituted Joint Hindu family with Bishan Singh and, therefore, the plaintiffs acquired 1/3rd share each in the suit land by birth. Bishan Singh executed Will dated 03.05.1960 in favour of his wife Nand Kaur. The plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the said Will under Section 6 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 (in short, the Custom Act) alleging the suit land to be ancestral property and alleging that Bishan Singh had no right to execute the said Will - appellant contended that in the earlier suit, challenge to the Will was under the Custom Act and not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said other case was fixed for hearing. On the other hand, it appears that the appellants chose to re-file the appeal on 23.12.2009 and, therefore, have alleged that paper book was traced on 22.12.2009. However, otherwise, there was no occasion for the paper book of the instant case being suddenly traced on 22.12.2009. No sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of 526 days in re-filing the appeal is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. Since delay in re-filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is liable to dismissal on this score. However, even on merits, the appellants cannot succeed. This is second appeal by plaintiff No.1 and legal representative of plaintiff No.2, having failed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bishan Singh, even then plaintiffs have 2/3rd share in the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought possession of 2/3rd share of the suit land being owners thereof. Defendants inter alia pleaded that the instant suit is barred by res judicata in view of judgment dated 24.08.1973 passed in the earlier suit. The suit was also alleged to be time barred. It was also alleged that defendants are in possession of the suit land since the year 1965, having purchased it on the basis of agreement to sell executed by Bishan Singh as well as Nand Kaur and on the basis of decree passed by learned District Judge, Ropar in the year 1983 for specific performance of the agreement. Plaint averments were controverted. Learned Civil Judge (Junior D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after 24 years. The defendants are in possession of the suit land since the year 1965. Consequently, the suit is also hopelessly barred by limitation. In addition to the aforesaid, it has been observed in paragraph 24 of the judgment of the trial Court that it is admitted fact that sale deed has been executed in favour of defendants pursuant to decree passed in suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Similar observation has also been made by the lower appellate Court that sale deed has been executed in favour of the defendants on the basis of judgment passed in suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The present plaintiffs were party to the said suit. For this reason as well, the plaintiffs cannot succeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
