Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARBANS LAL & ORS versus MEHNGA SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harbans Lal & Ors v. Mehnga Singh - RSA-230-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1056 (21 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 230 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2006.

Parties Name

Harbans Lal and others

...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

Mehnga Singh

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Subhash Aggarwal,

Advocate, for the appellants.

JUDGMENT:

Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction, with a prayer that the appellants defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession of the property, description of which was given by him in his plaint. Suit was dismissed. However, he succeeded in appeal. It is an admitted fact that in the revenue record, Gram Panchayat was entered as owner of the property. Trial Court declined him the relief primarily on the ground that he was a trespasser, as he has never paid any rent etc.

to the Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, suit was filed only against the appellants and not against the Gram Panchayat. Appellate Court below, by taking note of entries in the revenue record, and also statements made by the defence witnesses, came to a conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute, for the last more than 1- decade. As per averments made by the appellants, they have inherited rights in the land from one Nathi, who was shown in the Jamabandi in possession of the property. It is a proved fact that even during the life time of Nathi , respondent was in possession. Entry to the contrary, in the revenue record, if any, has lost its significance. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paras No. 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of facts, as no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.

February 28, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC 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.