Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHIM SEN versus RAM KISHAN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhim Sen v. Ram Kishan - RSA-305-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1060 (22 February 2006)

R.S.A. No. 305 of 2004 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 305 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 2, 2006

Bhim Sen

.....Appellant

Vs.

Ram Kishan

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The defendant is the appellant before this Court.

A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff- respondent. He claimed that there was a passage of 7 ft. wide which was left joint between the parties. The defendant was trying to encroach upon the said passage.

He claimed that the defendant had no such right, and therefore, injunction was sought against him.

R.S.A. No. 305 of 2004 (O&M) [2]

The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that there was a passage but its width was only 4 feet. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed to that extent.

An appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reapparised the evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned first Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Bhim Sen had himself taken a stand that previously a joint passage of 7 feet width existed at the site but later on its width was reduced to 5 feet. The defendant further maintained that one Brij Bhushan had encroached upon a strip of 1 feet, and therefore, passage at the spot was only 4 feet. However, the learned first Appellate Court held that the defendant had not led any evidence to show that the passage was reduced to 5 feet or that there was any encroachment made by Brij Bhushan. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed in toto. The defendant was restrained from raising any obstruction in 7feet wide passage.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

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

Dismissed.

March 2, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.