Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
EX. F.A.No. 19/2009 & CM No. 18225/09
th
% Judgment reserved on: 16 December, 2009
st
Judgment delivered on: 21 December, 2009
1. Shri Naeem Ahmed,
S/o Late Haji Zahoor Ahmed,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Zainab,
W/o Naeem Ahmed,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
….Appellants
Through: Mr. H. S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Saurabh
Tiwari, Adv.
Versus
1. Shri Uggar Sain Jain,
S/o Shri G. C. Jain,
B-116, Shakti Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini,
New Delhi-85
2. Shri Inderjeet Singh,
S/o Late Sardar Mohinder Singh,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar,
Delhi.
….Respondents.
Through: Nemo
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 1 of 8
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
th
1. Present appeal has been filed against orders dated 25 August, 2009 and
rd
23 October, 2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, in execution
petition.
2. Vide impugned order, the Court has dismissed the objections of the
objectors.
3. Decree holder had filed suit for recovery in which preliminary decree was
th th
passed on 17 March, 2004. Later on, final decree was passed on 24 March,
2005. In the final decree, it was directed that if the respondent defaulted in
making payment, then the Decree holder would be at liberty to apply for final
decree for realization of decreetal amount by sale out of mortgaged property
bearing no. XVII/3321, Ranjit Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 50 Sq.
yards.
4. The objectors (Appellants- herein), are claiming themselves to be the legal
owner of the property having purchased the same from its previous owner Smt.
th
Satwant Kaur, vide sale deed dated 26 April, 2005. As per appellants, property
th
was inherited by Smt. Satwant Kaur by virtue of Will dated 11 July, 1995
executed by Sh. Mahender Singh in her favour.
5. Decree-holder in its reply stated that objectors have no right, interest or
title in the property. The objections have been filed in connivance with judgment
th
debtor and his mother. According to the decree holder, sale deed dated 26 April,
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 2 of 8
2004 is nothing but a sham document. Smt. Satwant Kaur was given only lifetime
interest in the property in question and said property was ultimately to be fallen
and owned by Sardar Inderjeet Singh. Smt. Satwant Kaur had no right, title and
interest in the property as she was never an absolute owner of the property and the
th
sale deed dated 26 April, 2004, executed by her has no sanctity. Sardar
Mahender Singh, the original owner of the property, in his lifetime executed Will
th
dated 20 November, 2000, after which Sardar Inderjeet Singh had become the
owner of the property, after the death of Sardar Mahender Singh.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that trial court wrongly
held that Smt. Satwant Kaur merely had a life interest in the property and was not
competent to alienate the same. The words of the Will in unambiguous terms
bring out the intention of the testator to create an absolute interest in the property
in favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur. The intention to create a mere life interest in
favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur can by no stretch of imagination be culled out from
the wording of the Will. As per Will, Smt. Satwant Kaur is the sole and absolute
owner of the properties. This makes abundantly clear that the interest created by
testator in favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur, was absolute and not limited.
7. Other contention is that even if the Will is interpreted to mean that Smt.
Satwant Kaur has had a life estate in the property, the said life estate has enlarged
into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 (for short as „Act‟). Smt. Satwant Kaur was the wife of the testator
therefore, testator had an obligation to maintain her and as such Smt. Satwant
Kaur had a pre-existing right in the property.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 3 of 8
th
8. Lastly, it is contended that the Will dated 11 July, 1995 is not hit by Section 14
(2) of the Act. The Will confers an absolute interest on Smt. Satwant Kaur in respect of
the property giving her thereby all powers to deal with the said property, in any manner
whatsoever.
9. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for appellants referred the following
judgments;
(i) Mangat Mal (dead) and another Vs. Smt. Punni Devi (dead) and
others, AIR 1996, Supreme Court 172.
(ii) Smt. Palchuri Henumayamma Vs.Tadikamalla Kotlingam (D)
by LRs and Others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3062.
(iii) Balwant Kaur and another Vs. Chanan Singh and ohers;
AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1908, and;
(iv) Santosh & Ors. Vs. Saraswathibai & Anr; AIR 2008 Supreme
Court 500.
10. Trial court framed following issue while disposing the objections of the
appellants;
“1. Whether the plaintiff /objectors have any independent
right, title or interest in the property bearing no. XVII/3321,
Ranjeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi? is so, its effects”.
th
11. Relevant portion of Will dated 11 July, 1995, executed Sardar Mahinder
Singh, read as under:
“Whereas the Testator is the owner of property
bearing No. 3321, situated in the abadi of Ranjit
Nagar, near Pusa Gate, New Delhi.
Whereas I the Testator is also owner of property
No. C-89, situated in the abadi of Vishnu Garden,
near Punjabi Market, New Delhi and also owner of
tenancy rights of one shop No. 2995/38 situated in
the abadi of Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 4 of 8
So far I the Testator is alive, I am the owner and
will be the owner of the above mentioned property
and shop on tenancy rights. After my death the
above mentioned property no. 3321, Ranjit Nagar,
near Pusa Gate, New Delhi, property no. C-89,
Vishnu Garden, near Punjabi Market, New Delhi
and Shop No. 2995/38 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi, shall go and devolve to my wife Smt.
Satwant Kaur. She will be the sole and absolute
owner of the above mentioned properties and
tenancy rights of the said shop after my death.
After the death of my wife Smt. Satwant
Kaur, the property No. 3321, Ranjit Nagar, near
Pusa Gate, New Delhi shall go and devolve to my
son Shri Inderjeet Singh and property no. C-89,
Vishnu Garden, near Punjabi Market New Delhi,
shall go and devolve to my son Sh. Iqbal Singh and
tenancy rights of Shop No. 2995/38 Beadonpura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi, shall go and devolve to my
both sons namely, Shri Inderjeet Singh and Iqbal
Singh both in equal shares. They will be the sole
and absolute owners of the above mentioned
properties and tenancy rights of shop as mentioned
above after the death of my wife Smt. Satwant
Kaur. My above named both the sons Shri Inderjeet
Singh and Shri Iqbal Singh will give a sum of
Rs.600/- per month to my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur,
during her life time.”
12. Section 14 of the Act which is relevant in this case, read as under:
“ 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her
absolute property -(1) Any property possessed by a
female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as
full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation- In this sub-section, “property” includes
both movable and immovable property acquired by
a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a
partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a
relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by
her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever,
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 5 of 8
and also any such property held by her as stridhana
immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply
to any property acquired by way of gift or under a
will or any other instrument or under a decree or
order of a civil court or under an award where the
terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the
decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate
in such property.”
13. In the various judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants
principle laid down is that;
“Property given to widow in lieu of her
maintenance, after coming into force of Hindu
Succession Act, ripens into full estate and widow
becomes absolute owner in view of Section 14(1) of
the Act.”
14. However, sub section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, must be read as a
proviso or exception to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. As per recital in
the Will, Sardar Mahinder Kumar, the owner of property, only gave life interest of
the property in question to his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur. The testator made specific
provision for the maintenance of his wife, as in the Will it is mentioned;
“After the death of my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur, the
property No. 3321, Ranjit Nagar, Near Pusa Gate,
New Delhi shall go and devolve to my son Sh.
Inderjeet Singh.”
The Will further states;
“My above named both the sons Sh. Inderjeet Singh
& Sh. Iqbal Singh will give a sum of Rs.600/- per
month to my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur, during her
life time.”
15. Thus, the testator of the Will has made provisions for maintenance of his
wife, separately.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 6 of 8
16. A similar question arose before Supreme Court in Bhura & Ors. Vs.
Ghasi Ram (AIR) 1994 SUPREME COURT 1202 . There the controversy was
whether Will conferred only a limited estate or an absolute estate on the wife of
deceased testator? Supreme Court held;
“6. The limited estate conferred upon Sarjabai by
the Will (W.P. 4) could not even be enlarged into an
absolute estate under the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, even though she was possessed of that
property at the time of the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. S. 14(2) of the Act
mandates that nothing contained in sub-sec. (1) of
S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall apply
to any property acquired by way of gift or under a
Will or by any other instrument prescribing a
restricted right in such property. In view of our
finding that the Will (Ex P.4) itself prescribed a
restricted right or life-estate in the property in
favour of Sarjabai, that estate could not be enlarged
into an absolute estate in view of the express
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”
17. Trial court in this regard held;
“I have gone through the contents of Ex. AW1/A
which shows that only a lifetime interest had been
granted in favour of Satwant Kaur in the property
mentioned therein and that the testator had stated
that he was the owner of the property mentioned
therein and after his death, the property would
devolve upon his wife Satwant Kaur and after her
death the property would devolve to his son
Inderjeet Singh. It is an admitted case of the
objector that they are not in possession of the Sale
Deed rather AW2 has admitted that he has only
seen the certified copy of the sale deed and Satwant
Kaur had never shown the sale deed to him.
Therefore under these circumstances, Smt. Satwant
Kaur was only having lifetime interest of the
property and could not have executed any document
of sale in favour of present objector and therefore
under these circumstances the seller Satwant Kaur
could not have conveyed a better right or title than
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 7 of 8
what she had which was only a life interest in the
property. Surprisingly, Satwant Kaur is still alive
but she has not been produced before this court. She
is the best witness who could have thrown some
light on the documents on which the objectors now
seeking to place their reliance. Admittedly, the sale
of the property has been affected only after the final
decree was passed and therefore the attempt, it
appears is only to overreach the decree of the Ld.
Trial Court. This court being a execution court
cannot go beyond the decree. It is settled law that it
is only in exceptional circumstances when the
execution court can go beyond the decree. The
objectors before this court have neither alleged nor
pleaded any fraud nor any evidence has been lead
on the said aspect.”
18. Since, testator has already made provisions for maintenance for his wife
Smt. Satwant Kaur, that both the sons of the testator will give a sum of Rs.600/-
per month to Smt. Satwant Kaur, during her life time, it goes on to show that Smt.
Satwant Kaur had only life time interest in the property and after her death the
property has to devolve on Sh. Inderjeet Singh. Various Judgments (Supra) cited
by learned counsel for appellants, are not at all applicable to the facts of the
present case.
19. There is no reason to disagree with the findings given by the trial court
and no infirmity or ambiguity is there in the impugned order.
20. Present appeal is thus not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.
CM No. 18225/2009
Dismissed being infructuous.
st
21 December, 2009 V.B.Gupta, J.
ab
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 8 of 8
EX. F.A.No. 19/2009 & CM No. 18225/09
th
% Judgment reserved on: 16 December, 2009
st
Judgment delivered on: 21 December, 2009
1. Shri Naeem Ahmed,
S/o Late Haji Zahoor Ahmed,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Zainab,
W/o Naeem Ahmed,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
….Appellants
Through: Mr. H. S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Saurabh
Tiwari, Adv.
Versus
1. Shri Uggar Sain Jain,
S/o Shri G. C. Jain,
B-116, Shakti Apartments,
Sector-9, Rohini,
New Delhi-85
2. Shri Inderjeet Singh,
S/o Late Sardar Mohinder Singh,
R/o 3321, Ward No. XVII,
Ranjit Nagar,
Delhi.
….Respondents.
Through: Nemo
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 1 of 8
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
th
1. Present appeal has been filed against orders dated 25 August, 2009 and
rd
23 October, 2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, in execution
petition.
2. Vide impugned order, the Court has dismissed the objections of the
objectors.
3. Decree holder had filed suit for recovery in which preliminary decree was
th th
passed on 17 March, 2004. Later on, final decree was passed on 24 March,
2005. In the final decree, it was directed that if the respondent defaulted in
making payment, then the Decree holder would be at liberty to apply for final
decree for realization of decreetal amount by sale out of mortgaged property
bearing no. XVII/3321, Ranjit Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 50 Sq.
yards.
4. The objectors (Appellants- herein), are claiming themselves to be the legal
owner of the property having purchased the same from its previous owner Smt.
th
Satwant Kaur, vide sale deed dated 26 April, 2005. As per appellants, property
th
was inherited by Smt. Satwant Kaur by virtue of Will dated 11 July, 1995
executed by Sh. Mahender Singh in her favour.
5. Decree-holder in its reply stated that objectors have no right, interest or
title in the property. The objections have been filed in connivance with judgment
th
debtor and his mother. According to the decree holder, sale deed dated 26 April,
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 2 of 8
2004 is nothing but a sham document. Smt. Satwant Kaur was given only lifetime
interest in the property in question and said property was ultimately to be fallen
and owned by Sardar Inderjeet Singh. Smt. Satwant Kaur had no right, title and
interest in the property as she was never an absolute owner of the property and the
th
sale deed dated 26 April, 2004, executed by her has no sanctity. Sardar
Mahender Singh, the original owner of the property, in his lifetime executed Will
th
dated 20 November, 2000, after which Sardar Inderjeet Singh had become the
owner of the property, after the death of Sardar Mahender Singh.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that trial court wrongly
held that Smt. Satwant Kaur merely had a life interest in the property and was not
competent to alienate the same. The words of the Will in unambiguous terms
bring out the intention of the testator to create an absolute interest in the property
in favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur. The intention to create a mere life interest in
favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur can by no stretch of imagination be culled out from
the wording of the Will. As per Will, Smt. Satwant Kaur is the sole and absolute
owner of the properties. This makes abundantly clear that the interest created by
testator in favour of Smt. Satwant Kaur, was absolute and not limited.
7. Other contention is that even if the Will is interpreted to mean that Smt.
Satwant Kaur has had a life estate in the property, the said life estate has enlarged
into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 (for short as „Act‟). Smt. Satwant Kaur was the wife of the testator
therefore, testator had an obligation to maintain her and as such Smt. Satwant
Kaur had a pre-existing right in the property.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 3 of 8
th
8. Lastly, it is contended that the Will dated 11 July, 1995 is not hit by Section 14
(2) of the Act. The Will confers an absolute interest on Smt. Satwant Kaur in respect of
the property giving her thereby all powers to deal with the said property, in any manner
whatsoever.
9. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for appellants referred the following
judgments;
(i) Mangat Mal (dead) and another Vs. Smt. Punni Devi (dead) and
others, AIR 1996, Supreme Court 172.
(ii) Smt. Palchuri Henumayamma Vs.Tadikamalla Kotlingam (D)
by LRs and Others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3062.
(iii) Balwant Kaur and another Vs. Chanan Singh and ohers;
AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1908, and;
(iv) Santosh & Ors. Vs. Saraswathibai & Anr; AIR 2008 Supreme
Court 500.
10. Trial court framed following issue while disposing the objections of the
appellants;
“1. Whether the plaintiff /objectors have any independent
right, title or interest in the property bearing no. XVII/3321,
Ranjeet Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi? is so, its effects”.
th
11. Relevant portion of Will dated 11 July, 1995, executed Sardar Mahinder
Singh, read as under:
“Whereas the Testator is the owner of property
bearing No. 3321, situated in the abadi of Ranjit
Nagar, near Pusa Gate, New Delhi.
Whereas I the Testator is also owner of property
No. C-89, situated in the abadi of Vishnu Garden,
near Punjabi Market, New Delhi and also owner of
tenancy rights of one shop No. 2995/38 situated in
the abadi of Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 4 of 8
So far I the Testator is alive, I am the owner and
will be the owner of the above mentioned property
and shop on tenancy rights. After my death the
above mentioned property no. 3321, Ranjit Nagar,
near Pusa Gate, New Delhi, property no. C-89,
Vishnu Garden, near Punjabi Market, New Delhi
and Shop No. 2995/38 Beadonpura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi, shall go and devolve to my wife Smt.
Satwant Kaur. She will be the sole and absolute
owner of the above mentioned properties and
tenancy rights of the said shop after my death.
After the death of my wife Smt. Satwant
Kaur, the property No. 3321, Ranjit Nagar, near
Pusa Gate, New Delhi shall go and devolve to my
son Shri Inderjeet Singh and property no. C-89,
Vishnu Garden, near Punjabi Market New Delhi,
shall go and devolve to my son Sh. Iqbal Singh and
tenancy rights of Shop No. 2995/38 Beadonpura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi, shall go and devolve to my
both sons namely, Shri Inderjeet Singh and Iqbal
Singh both in equal shares. They will be the sole
and absolute owners of the above mentioned
properties and tenancy rights of shop as mentioned
above after the death of my wife Smt. Satwant
Kaur. My above named both the sons Shri Inderjeet
Singh and Shri Iqbal Singh will give a sum of
Rs.600/- per month to my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur,
during her life time.”
12. Section 14 of the Act which is relevant in this case, read as under:
“ 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her
absolute property -(1) Any property possessed by a
female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as
full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation- In this sub-section, “property” includes
both movable and immovable property acquired by
a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a
partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of
maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a
relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by
her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever,
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 5 of 8
and also any such property held by her as stridhana
immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply
to any property acquired by way of gift or under a
will or any other instrument or under a decree or
order of a civil court or under an award where the
terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the
decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate
in such property.”
13. In the various judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants
principle laid down is that;
“Property given to widow in lieu of her
maintenance, after coming into force of Hindu
Succession Act, ripens into full estate and widow
becomes absolute owner in view of Section 14(1) of
the Act.”
14. However, sub section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, must be read as a
proviso or exception to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. As per recital in
the Will, Sardar Mahinder Kumar, the owner of property, only gave life interest of
the property in question to his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur. The testator made specific
provision for the maintenance of his wife, as in the Will it is mentioned;
“After the death of my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur, the
property No. 3321, Ranjit Nagar, Near Pusa Gate,
New Delhi shall go and devolve to my son Sh.
Inderjeet Singh.”
The Will further states;
“My above named both the sons Sh. Inderjeet Singh
& Sh. Iqbal Singh will give a sum of Rs.600/- per
month to my wife Smt. Satwant Kaur, during her
life time.”
15. Thus, the testator of the Will has made provisions for maintenance of his
wife, separately.
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 6 of 8
16. A similar question arose before Supreme Court in Bhura & Ors. Vs.
Ghasi Ram (AIR) 1994 SUPREME COURT 1202 . There the controversy was
whether Will conferred only a limited estate or an absolute estate on the wife of
deceased testator? Supreme Court held;
“6. The limited estate conferred upon Sarjabai by
the Will (W.P. 4) could not even be enlarged into an
absolute estate under the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, even though she was possessed of that
property at the time of the coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. S. 14(2) of the Act
mandates that nothing contained in sub-sec. (1) of
S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall apply
to any property acquired by way of gift or under a
Will or by any other instrument prescribing a
restricted right in such property. In view of our
finding that the Will (Ex P.4) itself prescribed a
restricted right or life-estate in the property in
favour of Sarjabai, that estate could not be enlarged
into an absolute estate in view of the express
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”
17. Trial court in this regard held;
“I have gone through the contents of Ex. AW1/A
which shows that only a lifetime interest had been
granted in favour of Satwant Kaur in the property
mentioned therein and that the testator had stated
that he was the owner of the property mentioned
therein and after his death, the property would
devolve upon his wife Satwant Kaur and after her
death the property would devolve to his son
Inderjeet Singh. It is an admitted case of the
objector that they are not in possession of the Sale
Deed rather AW2 has admitted that he has only
seen the certified copy of the sale deed and Satwant
Kaur had never shown the sale deed to him.
Therefore under these circumstances, Smt. Satwant
Kaur was only having lifetime interest of the
property and could not have executed any document
of sale in favour of present objector and therefore
under these circumstances the seller Satwant Kaur
could not have conveyed a better right or title than
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 7 of 8
what she had which was only a life interest in the
property. Surprisingly, Satwant Kaur is still alive
but she has not been produced before this court. She
is the best witness who could have thrown some
light on the documents on which the objectors now
seeking to place their reliance. Admittedly, the sale
of the property has been affected only after the final
decree was passed and therefore the attempt, it
appears is only to overreach the decree of the Ld.
Trial Court. This court being a execution court
cannot go beyond the decree. It is settled law that it
is only in exceptional circumstances when the
execution court can go beyond the decree. The
objectors before this court have neither alleged nor
pleaded any fraud nor any evidence has been lead
on the said aspect.”
18. Since, testator has already made provisions for maintenance for his wife
Smt. Satwant Kaur, that both the sons of the testator will give a sum of Rs.600/-
per month to Smt. Satwant Kaur, during her life time, it goes on to show that Smt.
Satwant Kaur had only life time interest in the property and after her death the
property has to devolve on Sh. Inderjeet Singh. Various Judgments (Supra) cited
by learned counsel for appellants, are not at all applicable to the facts of the
present case.
19. There is no reason to disagree with the findings given by the trial court
and no infirmity or ambiguity is there in the impugned order.
20. Present appeal is thus not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.
CM No. 18225/2009
Dismissed being infructuous.
st
21 December, 2009 V.B.Gupta, J.
ab
Ex. F. A. No.19/2009 Page 8 of 8