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


JAI PARKASH & Anr v. NEERAJ & Ors - RSA-1865-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 27 (30 May 2005)

R.S.A.No.1865 of 2005

Jai Parkash and another v. Neeraj and others Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate,

for the appellants.


Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

There is a delay of 16 days in refiling the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in C.M.No.4942-C of 2005, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

The plaintiffs have filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and appraised the case file.

The following question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal:-

Whether or not the plaintiff-appellants have got any legal right to place their Rehris/Khokhas over the suit land? Admittedly, the suit land belonged to defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiffs had placed their Rehris/Khokhas thereon without any authority. Thus, they are in unauthorised possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove that they had taken prior permission before installing the Rehris/Khokhas over the suit land. It has also been admitted by the plaintiffs R.S.A.No.1865 of 2005

themselves that the land over which the Khokhas/Rehris have been installed is a path meant for use by the passersby. Even the plea taken by them in the suit that they had been paying Tehbazari to the Municipal Committee, stands disproved from the statement of Lachhman Jati (D.W.4), who is a Clerk Tehbazari with the Municipal Council, Ambala City. It has been stated by him that on the suit land no person is having any Tehbazari, which was previously in existence and had expired 3-4 years back. It has also been stated by him that all the persons who have installed Rehris/Khokhas, including the plaintiffs, are in illegal possession of the suit land.

In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the well- reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. These are concurrent findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with in the second appeal.

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

May17, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )

KKP 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.