High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

No Evidence to Suggest Another Property Excluded from Partition: High Court Dismisses Appeal for Lack of Merit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Alka Sarin dismissed a regular second appeal in the case concerning the partition of property. The appeal challenged the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had passed a preliminary decree for the partition of property.

The case, identified as RSA-3009-2019, involved a dispute over a property measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas. The appellants contested the preliminary decree on the grounds of an alleged mutual settlement that purportedly excluded them from the ownership of the disputed property and argued that the suit was flawed due to a partial partition. These claims were, however, not substantiated with credible evidence throughout the course of the legal proceedings.

The plaintiffs, in this case, sought a partition asserting their respective shares in the property, which had not been previously partitioned. The defendants (appellants in the high court) countered by claiming an exclusive possession based on a mutual settlement dating back to 1952. Despite these assertions, no convincing evidence was presented to prove the alleged settlement or to challenge the co-ownership and entitlements of the plaintiffs as outlined in the lower courts’ rulings.

Co-ownership and Entitlement: The court reiterated findings from the lower courts that the plaintiffs were co-owners and entitled to their shares in the property.

Rejection of Mutual Settlement Claim: Justice Sarin pointed out that the document marked D1, relied upon by the appellants to prove the mutual settlement, was not proven in accordance with legal standards. The appellants failed to present any evidence supporting their claim that an alternative property was allocated to the predecessors of the plaintiffs.

Partial Partition Argument: The argument concerning the partial partition was dismissed as it had not been raised in earlier proceedings nor adequately pressed during the appeals. Justice Sarin noted that such claims should have been substantiated and presented earlier in the process.

Decision and Conclusion: Concluding her judgment, Justice Sarin affirmed that the appeal raised no substantial question of law and hence lacked merit. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the preliminary decrees of the lower courts. All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

Hawa Singh & Ors. vs. Ravinder & Ors.

Similar News