(O&M) GURDIAL SINGH K.R. MAHAJAN, V.K. JAIN, S.B.GOYAL, vs RANJIT KAUR ETC. — RSA/29/1993

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010267231993

Filing Number

RSA/29/1993

Filing Date

29-Dec-2007

Registration No

RSA/29/1993

Registration Date

29-Dec-2007

Judge

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Coram

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.(O&M) GURDIAL SINGH K.R. MAHAJAN, V.K. JAIN, S.B.GOYAL,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RANJIT KAUR ETC.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Sandeep MoudgilView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA/29/1993 — Gurdial Singh v. Ranjit Kaur The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the second appeal and reversed the lower courts' judgments. The court held that a 1979 consent decree recognizing the appellant's rights to agricultural land through a pre-existing family arrangement was valid and binding, and did not require registration. The court found the First Appellate Court's finding of fraud against the decree was perverse and unsustainable, as it rested on suspicion and circumstantial inference without specific pleadings or strict proof of fraud. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit for possession based on inheritance and a 1980 Will was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Nov-2013

    Mr Justice Jaswant Singh

  4. 29-Dec-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/29/1993

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA/29/1993 — Gurdial Singh v. Ranjit Kaur The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the second appeal and reversed the lower courts' judgments. The court held that a 1979 consent decree recognizing the appellant's rights to agricultural land through a pre-existing family arrangement was valid and binding, and did not require registration. The court found the First Appellate Court's finding of fraud against the decree was perverse and unsustainable, as it rested on suspicion and circumstantial inference without specific pleadings or strict proof of fraud. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit for possession based on inheritance and a 1980 Will was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case