Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RUSTOM versus RAMZAN ALIAS RAMZANI AND ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rustom v. Ramzan alias Ramzani and Ors - RSA-3115-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1570 (9 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CASE NO.RSA No.3115 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION:21-03.2006

PARTIES NAME:

Rustom

.....APPELLANT

VERSUS

Ramzan alias Ramzani and Others

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr Sachin Mittal , Advocate

for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

Appellant/plaintiff by claiming himself as owner of the property in dispute, filed a suit with the prayer that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the property, the description of which was given in his plaint. In the alternative, it was also pleaded that the respondent- defendant Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 be directed to remove the encroachment from the property, which in fact was his ownership. The suit was dismissed and also the appeal. Both the Courts below having taken note of the sale deed executed by one Shakuntala in favour of the appellant and another sale deed, which was executed by Ramzan in favour of Shakuntla, came to the conclusion that the property, which was subject matter of sale in both the sale deeds do not tally with each other. It was also found as a matter of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that he was in possession of the disputed portion of the property,as alleged by him. By taking note of the contents of the sale deed. Ex.P-1, it has further been held that the property was not joint, as stated by the appellant.

No case is made out for interference, as no substantial question of law, has been raised by the counsel at the time of arguments.

Dismissed. However, if so advised, the appellant may settle his dispute regarding payment of consideration money with Shakuntla from whom he is alleged to have purchased the property in dispute.

(JASBIR SINGH)

March 21, 2006. JUDGE

Pds


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.