Meena Sharma vs Puran And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11314 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097335




129                                                               2023:PHHC:097335



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                         Regular Second Appeal No. 5958 of 2019 (O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision: 31.07.2023


Smt. Meena Sharma
                                                                   ... Appellant(s)

                                        Versus

Puran and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana

and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab

Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi

(Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived by

both the Courts below are challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal. The

plaintiff's suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the

judgment and decree dated 15.05.1995, passed by the Court of competent

jurisdiction in the civil suit titled as "Puran v. Smt. Sarla Devi" is illegal

with a consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by

both the Courts below.

3. It has been found that the decree was passed because the

defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, it has come on

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097335

2023:PHHC:097335

record that Sarla Devi had executed a registered general power of attorney in

favour of the defendant No.12-Ajay Kumar on 10.05.1995, and the plaintiff

has failed to prove that the aforesaid general power of attorney was the result

of fraud and misrepresentation.

4. The learned counsel representing the appellant has failed to

draw the attention of the Court to any substantive misreading or non-reading

of the evidence which goes to the root of the case. He also failed to point out

any material error in appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts below.

5 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts

below. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

6. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 31, 2023 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:097335

2 of 2