Published on: December 05, 2023 at 01:20 IST
The Supreme Court has recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in 1972, emphasizing concerns about the appellant’s motivations, stating, “Appellant Seems To Be Too Greedy.”
The court raised suspicions that challenging a sale deed from 1956 after a lapse of 16 years might be an effort to extract more money from the State.
The legal dispute involved the successor-in-interest of the plaintiff challenging a High Court judgment in Second Appeal.
The original lawsuit was initiated by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, now deceased, contesting a sale deed executed by his father, involving a significant piece of land subsequently sold to the State of Punjab (now in Haryana).
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal found the suit to be “totally mis-conceived.” They highlighted the absence of documents proving the plaintiff’s right to the property and questioned the legitimacy of the challenge to a sale deed from 1956, suggesting a possible motive to extract additional funds from the State.
The appellant argued that the High Court’s finding on the deceased’s date of birth was erroneous, presenting a certificate from Doon School, Dehradun, as evidence that could render the suit not time-barred.
The appellant asserted that the sale of the land by his father, without court permission and not for the minor’s need and welfare, was rightfully set aside by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court.
Contrarily, the State contended that the litigation was dishonest, serving as an attempt to extract more money. They argued that other sale deeds were similarly registered, and the consideration for the land sold to the State was duly paid.
After hearing both parties, the Court acknowledged the dispute over the deceased’s date of birth but ultimately found the suit misconceived.
The Court concluded that challenging a sale deed from 1956 after 16 years might be an attempt to extract more money from the State.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stating that there was no case for interference. Additionally, the Court highlighted the State’s offer to pay more money to the appellant, which was rejected as excessively greedy.
In summary, the Court dismissed the appeal, underscoring the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim and suggesting that the lawsuit may be an attempt to extract additional funds from the State.