Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SARUP versus FATEH SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Sarup v. Fateh Singh & Ors - RSA-4232-1999 [2006] RD-P&H 2028 (27 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 4232 of 1999 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 4232 of 1999 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 27, 2006

Ram Sarup

.....Appellant

Vs.

Fateh Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate

for the Appellant.

Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate

for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The defendant is the appellant before this Court. He has lost concurrently before the two Courts below.

A suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the agricultural land but later on he had renounced the title of the plaintiffs and as such had forfeited his rights of tenancy. Consequently, R.S.A. No. 4232 of 1999 (O&M) [2]

the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to seek possession of the said land.

The defendant in his written statement filed by him denied that he was ever inducted as a tenant over the suit land. On the other hand, he claimed adverse possession over the suit property and consequently, pleaded that he had become the owner of the suit property because of the aforesaid adverse possession.

Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the defendant with regard to adverse possession. It has been held that the defendant was inducted as a tenant over the suit property by the plaintiffs. However, noticing the fact that the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property, it was held that the defendant had forfeited his claim of tenancy in the suit property. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the defendant failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

The controversy in question is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sada Ram and others Vs. Gajjan, 1970 PLJ 89. Sada Ram's case was followed subsequently in Ganesh Dutt and others Vs. Molu Ram and others, 1987 PLJ 435. It has been held by this Court that once a tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and had claimed ownership on the basis of adverse possession, then such a tenant forfeited his rights in the tenancy, and therefore, jurisdiction of the civil Court was not ousted and the suit for possession filed by the owners was maintainable.

R.S.A. No. 4232 of 1999 (O&M) [3]

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.

March 27, 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.