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


RATTAN LAL v. RAMAVTAR GUPTA & Ors - RSA-6-2006 [2005] RD-P&H 293 (19 December 2005)

R.S.A. No.6 of 2006 1


R.S.A. No. 6 of 2006

Date of decision:January 6,2006

Rattan Lal V. Ramavtar Gupta and others

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viney Mittal

Present: Shri Kul Bushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

Plaintiff No.2 is the appellant before this court.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that plot ABCDEF was the ownership and exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess them from the plot in dispute.

The suit was contested by the defendants. Exclusive ownership of the plaintiffs over the plot in question was denied. The defendants pleaded that some portion of the aforesaid plot was a rasta whereas the other R.S.A. No.6 of 2006 2

portion of plot was joint between the parties and was being used for holding functions by the family. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the Haveli in question was partitioned and some portion had fallen to the exclusive ownership of the plaintiffs.

The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on the record found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title or exclusive possession over the said property. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusions as have been arrived at by the learned trial Court. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs have now chosen to file the present regular second appeal.

I have heard Shri K.B.Shama, learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record of the case.

Shri Sharma has argued that the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the evidence available on the record and have in fact misread the evidence. My pointed attention has been drawn to the site R.S.A. No.6 of 2006 3

plan as well as the earlier judgment Ex.PX/1.

I have considered the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same. The site plan has been held to be not correct by the learned first appellate Court and,as such, cannot be relied upon. With regard to the judgment Ex.PX/1, learned first appellate court held that Gulzari Lal had filed a suit claiming that the plot in question was not in his exclusive possession but was a joint ownership of the other owners as well. The present defendants were not parties to the aforesaid judgment and, as such, neither any benefit can be drawn by the plaintiffs of the aforesaid judgment nor the said judgment is binding upon the defendants.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.


January 6 ,2006 (Viney Mittal )

sks Judge

R.S.A. No.6 of 2006 4


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.