Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS versus JOGINDER & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Haryana & Ors v. Joginder & Ors - RSA-2688-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2035 (27 March 2006)

R.S.A. No. 2688 of 2004 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

R.S.A. No. 2688 of 2004(O&M)

Date of decision: March 28,2006

State of Haryana and others V. Joginder and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Shri D.S.Nelwa, Sr.Deputy Advocate General,Haryana.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The defendants, State of Haryana and others are in appeal. They have lost before the learned first appellate court.

A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. It was claimed that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land and the defendants could not have dispossessed them. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial court. Although it was held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land but they were found in unauthorised possession and,therefore it was held that no injunction could be issued in their favour.

On an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the learned first appellate Court re-examined the controversy and held that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit land. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and it was held that the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. Since a liberty has been granted to the defendants to seek possession in accordance with law, there is no justification to interfere in the present appeal.

R.S.A. No. 2688 of 2004 (O&M)

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.

Dismissed.

March 28,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks 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.