Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROHTAK IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS versus RAJ KUMAR & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ROHTAK IMPROVEMENT TRUST & Ors v. RAJ KUMAR & Ors - RSA-1611-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 299 (20 December 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.M.No.4355-C & 4356-C of 2005 & R.S.A.No.1611 of 2005

Date of Decision : 16.01.2006

Rohtak Improvement Trust & others .... Appellants Vs.

Raj Kumar & others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in filing and re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

Two suits were filed by the plaintiffs, for permanent injunction. Both the plaintiffs claimed that they were owners in possession of the suit property, having purchased the same. Thereafter, on an understanding with the Improvement Trust for having a wider road, they have left 8 feet of the area from the purchased property on an understanding that 12 feet wide space would be left by Improvement Trust. However, now the trust was trying to carve out plots and raise the construction on the left out area belonging to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it was claimed that the C.M.No.4355-C & 4356-C of 2005 & : 2 :

R.S.A.No.1611 of 2005

defendant/Improvement Trust has no right to carve out plots or raise the construction. The learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate court came to the conclusion that since at no point of time, the left out space had been acquired by the Improvement Trust, therefore, they cannot raise any construction by carving out any plots. Consequently, the appeals filed by the plaintiffs were allowed and their suits were decreed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both 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.

Dismissed.

January 16, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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