Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARBHAJAN SINGH versus DILBAGH SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harbhajan Singh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors - RSA-841-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1074 (22 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.841 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:March 3, 2006

Harbhajan Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Dilbagh Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The present two appeals being RSA No.841 and RSA No.842 of 2006 have been filed by Harbhajan Singh, appellant.

Two appeals arise out of two separate suits. One suit was filed by the present respondents Dilbagh Singh and others for permanent injunction. It was claimed by the aforesaid plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit land and their possession has been adverse and hostile for a period of 50 years and as such they are owners of the suit land and that defendant Harbhajan Singh was trying to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land. Consequently, they claimed an injunction against the aforesaid defendant Harbhajan Singh.

The second suit was filed by Harbhajan Singh for permanent injunction. He claimed that he had purchased the property in question vide an agreement to sell dated April 9, 2002 from one Parsan Kaur and got the possession thereof also. He denied that Dilbagh Singh etc. were in possession of the suit property. Harbhajan Singh claimed that he had paid entire sale consideration to Parsan Kaur and had come into possession as owner of the property.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by Dilbagh Singh and others. They were held to be in possession of the suit property. However, their claim that they had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession was rejected. Consequently, the suit was decreed to the limited extent that they shall not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law.

In the other suit filed by Harbhajan Singh, the learned trial Court held that the aforesaid plaintiff had not been able to prove his title to the suit property or the fact that he had purchased the same from Parsan Kaur. It was not proved that even Parsan Kaur was having title over the suit property. Consequently, the suit filed by Harbhajan Singh was dismissed.

Two separate appeals were filed by Harbhajan Singh before the learned First Appellate Court. Both the appeals were heard together by the learned First Appellate Court and after re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the learned First Appellate Court also came to the similar conclusions as had been arrived at by the learned trial Court in the two suits.

Consequently, both the appeals filed by Harbhajan Singh were dismissed.

I have heard Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in two cases.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Harbhajan Singh was proved to be the owner of the suit property having purchased the said property through an agreement to sell dated April 9,2002 from Parsan Kaur and was in possession thereof. Consequently, it has been claimed that the claim of Harbhajan Singh should have been upheld by the two Courts below.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel.

No evidence has been led on record to show that Parsan Kaur was the owner of the suit property and as such was competent to sell. In the absence of any title of Parsan Kaur, the present appellant Harbhajan Singh cannot be heard to claim that he had become owner of the suit property.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned 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.

March 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.842of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:March 3, 2006

Harbhajan Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Dilbagh Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

For orders, see RSA No.841 of 2006.

March 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD 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.