The respondents denied the agreement dated 24.04.1980 and also denied the execution of alleged Will said to have been executed by Ved Prakash Kakaria in favour of the plaintiff.
The respondents defended the sale of the suit land made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.4 for valuable companysideration and companytended that respondent No.4 was put in its actual possession and has also set up their factory over the suit land and running the same.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 22.01.2005, dismissed the suit.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 however, sold the suit land to respondent No.4.
The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No.28, measuring 1/4th acre in Industrial Area Phase I Urban Estate, Panchkula hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
Thereafter Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria, on 24.04.1980, entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell the suit land to him on certain terms and companyditions.
The suit was essentially based on an agreement dated 24.04.1980 and the Will alleged to have been executed by late Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in his favour for claiming the aforementioned reliefs against the respondents.
By judgment decree dated 21.10.2005, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
It is against this judgment of the High Court, the appellant plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by special leave before this Court.
It was held that the appellant plaintiff failed to prove the agreement dated 24.04.1980, that the Will was also number proved, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the owner of the suit land rightly sold the suit land to respondent No.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including written submissions, we find numbermerit in the appeal.
1522 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula in A. No.20 of 2005.
Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula.
The respondents filed their respective written statements and denied the plaintiffs claim.
Felt aggrieved, the appellant pursued the matter in second appeal before the High Court.
On 05.02.1985, Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria expired, leaving behind two sons and one daughter respondent Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs.
On 10.10.1992, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration that the transfer made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.4 is null and void and number binding on the appellant, that the respondents be restrained from interfering in appellants possession over the suit land as he claimed to be in possession of the suit land, and lastly, for issuance of mandatory injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 directing them to transfer the suit land in favour of appellant.
The Trial Court framed the issues and the parties adduced their evidence.
The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the second appeal holding that the companycurrent findings of two Courts below are binding on the High Court and that the appeal does number involve any substantial question of law under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
4 for companysideration, and lastly, that respondent No.4 was in possession of the suit land and has set up their factory over the suit land.
Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in S.A. No.
Haryana Urban Development Authority hereinafter referred to as HUDA had allotted the suit land to one Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria in the year 1973.
Signature Not Verified 2 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.11.07 The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the 154728 IST Reason respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
