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


Gurmukh Singh & Ors v. Prithvi Ran & Anr - RSA-1921-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1260 (28 February 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.1921 of 2005

Date of Decision : March 02, 2006.

Gurmukh Singh & others .... Appellants


Prithvi Ran and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

for the respondents.


The defendants are the appellants before this Court. They have lost before the learned first appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed that he was in actual physical possession of the suit land measuring 26 kanals. The defendants claimed that they had purchased the suit property and were in actual possession of the same.

The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal by him. The learned first appellate court re- appraised the evidence oon record. On the basis of jamabandi (Ex.P-1), for the year 1994-95, the plaintiff was held to be in possession of the suit property. It was also noticed that the plaintiff's father Basheshar Dass was a co-sharer of the suit land and after his death, plaintiff had become the co- sharer of the suit land. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed to the extent that he would be entitled to R.S.A.No.1921 of 2005 : 2 :

maintain his exclusive possession till partition and it was directed that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed except by way of partition/in due course of law.

Shri Arihant Jain, learned counsel appearing for the defendants- appellants has vehemently argued that the defendants were purchasers of the suit property and even in actual possession thereof. It has also been argued that since the plaintiff has not disclosed that he had become the owner of the suit land, therefore, he had not come to the court with clean hands.

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The learned first appellate court has relied upon the jamabandi (Ex.P-1), to hold that the plaintiff was recorded in possession of the suit property. Earlier, plaintiff was claiming that he was a tenant under the co- sharers including his father Basheshar Dass. After the death of Basheshar Dass, obviously, the plaintiff has inherited his rights and has become a co- sharer in the suit property, including some other rights in the suit property.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court 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.


March 02, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


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.