Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


TEK RAM v. PURAN & Ors - RSA-1195-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 21 (25 May 2005)

Regular Second Appeal No.1195 of 2005 [1] Tek Ram v. Puran and others


Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate

for the appellant.



This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that he is not entitled to grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from making any type of construction (3'-9" in width and 24'-9" in length) on common street and from including the same in his house as shown with red colour in the site plan Mark ABCD. Both the Courts below have held that the site plan Ex.P1 placed on record by the plaintiff-appellant is incorrect and that of the defendant- respondents Mark `D' was correct. It has further been observed that incorrect facts have been pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant in the plaint as is evident from perusal of para 21 of the judgment of the trial Court. It has been found that claim of the plaintiff-appellant that there was no other street to have ingressed to his house was also erroneous. It has been held that the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to prove that portion Mark ABCD in the site plan Ex.P1 is part of the street. The Courts below have also concluded that the discretionary relief of injunction cannot be granted because the plaintiff-appellant has pleaded incorrect facts and has given incorrect site plan.

Regular Second Appeal No.1195 of 2005 [2] Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I have not felt persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the Courts below. The pure findings of fact have been recorded by concluding that the defendant-respondents are encroaching upon the common street. On the contrary, the plaintiff-appellant is proved to have made wrong averments and has filed a wrong site plan which is considered sufficient to disentitle him from claiming the discretionary relief of injunction. There is no room to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact as no question of law has been raised. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not deserve to be admitted.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.


August 23, 2005. JUDGE



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.