Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MARA SINGH versus NATHA SINGH & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mara Singh v. Natha Singh & another - RSA-3037-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1742 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.M.No.7923-C of 2005 &

C.M.No.7924-C of 2005 &

R.S.A.No.3037 of 2005.

Date of Decision : March 16, 2006.

Mara Singh .... Appellant

Vs.

Natha Singh & another .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate

for the appellant.

Ms.Malkiat Mann, Advocate

for the respondents.

* * *

JUDGMENT (Oral) :

C.M.No.7923-C of 2005 :

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

C.M.No.7924-C of 2005 :

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

R.S.A.No.3037 of 2005 :

The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was claimed that the C.M.No.7923-C of 2005 & : 2 :

C.M.No.7924-C of 2005 &

R.S.A.No.3037 of 2005

plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and therefore, the defendants had no right to dispossess him or interfere in the possession of the suit land.

The defendants, besides denying the claim of the plaintiff, also filed a counter claim seeking possession of the suit land.

Both the courts below have rejected the claim of the plaintiff that he had become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

Counter claim filed by the defendants has been decreed. It has been held that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit land and therefore, the defendants, being owners, were entitled to seek possession. Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and counter claim filed by the defendants was decreed by the learned trial court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also failed before 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 the record.

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

Dismissed.

March 16, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.