Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Vohra vs Naresh Chander And Ors on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 106
Regular Second Appeal No.1139 of 2020 (O & M)
Date of Decision: September 22, 2022
Sunil Kumar Vohra
..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Naresh Chander & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
...
PRESENT: - Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
. . .
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral)
This regular second appeal has been filed in a suit for
declaration filed by the respondents - plaintiffs claiming ownership and
possession in equal shares of the property bearing house tax No.94, Manauli
House, Ambala City. An injunction directing the appellant - defendant to
execute a sale deed in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs regarding his
share in the said property was also sought. The share was claimed on the
basis of an oral family settlement. The suit was decreed by the trial court,
vide judgment dated 20.07.2016, and appeal against the said order was
dismissed by the lower appellate court, vide judgment dated 01.11.2019.
A perusal of the record shows that the appellant - defendant
appearing as DW-3 admitted in his cross examination that he had received
Rs.1.5 lac and so did his sisters. The said amount was received by him as
AVIN KUMAR
2022.09.26 11:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
RSA No.1139 of 2020 [2]
settlement of his share in the oral family settlement. The findings recorded
by the lower appellate court in Para 15 of the judgment are as follows:
15. I do not see any merit in the contention that the
parties had not entered into any family settlement. Since, the
Appellant appearing as DW 3, has admitted in his cross
examination that he had received 1.5 lacs and so did his
sisters. Though, he has denied that the said amount had been
received by him as settlement of his share. He admitted he
could not prove any document to show that he had received
the said amount as loan, nor had he repaid the said loan.
Though, he went on to admit that he had executed an
affidavit (Exb. P1) in Dera Bassi and handed it over to his
sister authorizing her to receive his share from the suit
property, situated at House no. 94 Manauli House. Thus, the
existence of oral family settlement has been admitted, not
only by the Appellant, but also by his sister Anju Vasan,
who has been examined as DW 4. She has categorically
stated that all the heirs had taken 1.5 lacs as settlement of
their share in the suit property from Naresh in the family -
settlement which was ORAL and not reduced to writing.
Learned counsel for the appellant - defendant has argued
that the amount received by the defendant was not in relation to the family
settlement but was received on account of financial help.
This is not the pleaded case of the appellant - defendant, nor
any evidence to that effect has been led before the courts below. In this
AVIN KUMAR
2022.09.26 11:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
RSA No.1139 of 2020 [3]
situation, the argument deserves to be rejected. No other argument has been
raised.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Dismissed.
(Tribhuvan Dahiya)
Judge
September 22, 2022
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
AVIN KUMAR
2022.09.26 11:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
