Full Text
RFA 841/2010
Date of Decision: 12th September, 2011 GHANSHYAM SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Vinay Gupta, Adv.
Through : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Trial Court whereby his suit for partition has been dismissed. The respondent is also aggrieved by the judgment and has filed the cross-objections.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant has not placed on record the documents of title relating to the suit property in the name of his father late Chedda Lal. It is submitted that the title of late Chedda Lal 2011:DHC:4657 was admitted by both the parties and, therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed on this ground.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent contested the suit on various grounds inter alia that the late Chedda Lal executed agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt dated 16th October, 1992 in favour of the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court held that the aforesaid documents to be invalid which is contrary to the various judgments of this Court in the case of Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank, 94 (2001) DLT 841 (DB), Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd., 163 (2009) DLT 411, Seth Loon Karan v. I.E. John, AIR 1969 SC 73, Harbans Singh v. Shanti Devi, 1977 RLR 487, Prem Raj v. Babu Ram, 1991 RLR 458, Ramesh Mohan v. Raj Krishan, 1984 PLR 211, H.L. Malhotra v. Nanak Jai Singhani, 1986 RLR 89, Shikha Properties (P) Ltd. v. S. Bhagwant Singh & Others, 74 (1998) DLT 113 and Kuldip Singh Suri v. Surinder Singh Kalra, 76 (1998) DLT 232.
4. There is merit in the contentions of both the parties. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal as well as cross-objections are allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication on all the issues.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has been able to obtain certified copy of the sale deed of the suit property in favour of late Chedda Lal and the appellant be permitted to place the same on record before the learned Trial Court. The appellant has filed an application for leading additional evidence being CM No.874/2011 which is allowed. The appellant is permitted to lead additional evidence. The respondent shall also be entitled to lead additional evidence in rebuttal.
6. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 17th October, 2011 when the learned Trial Court shall fix the date for recording of the additional evidence. J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 mk