Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAWARAN SINGH & ORS versus RAMESH DUA, ADVOCATE

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sawaran Singh & Ors v. Ramesh Dua, Advocate - RSA-4495-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1344 (2 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 4495 of 2005(O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 4495 of 2005(O&M)

Date of Decision: February 28, 2006

Sawaran Singh and others

.....Appellants

Vs.

Ramesh Dua, Advocate

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals being R.S.A. No. 4495 of 2005 and R.S.A. No. 4496 of 2005 as the defendants in both the cases are common and are the appellants before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R.S.A. No. 4495 of 2005.

The defendants have lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent. It was claimed by the plaintiff that Balwant Singh, father of the defendants was owner of the property and he had chalked out a colony and allotted plots to various persons including the plaintiff. There were streets in the aforesaid colony. Later on, the defendants on account of the rise in prices etc. wanted to obstruct the streets and R.S.A. No. 4495 of 2005(O&M) [2]

encroach upon the plots owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit for permanent injunction was filed for restraining the defendants from not encroaching upon the suit property and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and also not to obstruct the streets.

The suit was contested by the defendants. Besides taking various technical objections they also denied the pleas taken by the plaintiff. A counter- claim was filed by the defendants in which it was claimed that plaintiff had forcibly and illegally taken the possession of the portion of the property detailed in the site plan appended with the counter-claim.

Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and that the defendants have no concern with the same. It has also been held that the plaintiff had not encroached upon any property of the defendants.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. Even the counter-claim filed by the defendants was specifically rejected by the learned first Appellate Court.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below 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.

February 28, 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.