Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

judgments of the courts below were a result of complete misreading of the evidence – High Court Judgment Upheld: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development in the long-standing property dispute case between two brothers, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the High Court’s judgment in favor of the late Gurcharan Singh (the Respondent). The dispute centered around the alleged sale of a portion of inherited property by one of the brothers, Faqir Singh, to Gurcharan Singh.

The bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka pronounced their judgment on 24th July 2023, dismissing the appeals filed by the late Gurbachan Singh (the Appellant) and his legal representatives.

The court noted that Gurcharan Singh had purchased a piece of land measuring 4 marlas from Faqir Singh through a validly executed sale deed in 1978. The Appellant claimed that the sale was not valid, as Faqir Singh did not have exclusive title or possession over the property. However, the court found substantial evidence to prove the partition of the property by their father, Suchet Singh, during his lifetime. This evidence confirmed Gurcharan Singh’s rightful ownership and possession of the disputed property.

In its judgment, the court emphasized that Gurcharan Singh, being a co-sharer and owner of the property, had every right to protect his possession if established. The court stated, “The judgments of the courts below were a result of complete misreading of the evidence,” and upheld the High Court’s decision, declaring Gurcharan Singh as entitled to possession of the specific portion sold to him.

The Appellant’s contention that a co-share purchaser does not have a right to possession was deemed inapplicable in this case due to the evidence of property partition, and the court rejected the reliance on precedent that did not align with the present circumstances.

The judgment further clarified that in second appeals arising from Punjab or Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, as Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 governs the jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court’s judgment did not need to formulate substantial questions of law.

The court, while acknowledging the general restraint in interfering with findings of fact in second appeals, found justification in this case, as the lower courts had ignored material evidence relating to property partition.

The judgment is likely to put an end to the protracted legal battle and provide closure to the parties involved. With the High Court’s ruling upheld by the Supreme Court, Gurcharan Singh’s rightful ownership and possession of the disputed property stand confirmed.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

GURBACHAN SINGH (DEAD)    THROUGH LRS   vs GURCHARAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ORS.   

Similar News