Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIPAL SINGH & ORS versus BASTI RAM & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jaipal Singh & Ors v. Basti Ram & Ors - RSA-2545-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2224 (3 April 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2545 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION:April 3, 2006

Jaipal Singh and others

....Appellants

VERSUS

Basti Ram and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri B.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The defendants are in appeal. They have lost before the learned First Appellate Court.

A suit for permanent injunction was filed in a representative capacity by the residents of the village claiming that the land in question was being used as Chargah and the plaintiffs and others inhabitants of the village were having grazing rights in the suit property and the defendants had no right to convert the said property to any other user.

The defendants contested the suit. They claimed that the land in question had never been used as a Chargah. The defendants claimed that they were exclusive owner in possession of the suit property.

The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court found it as a fact that the controversy between the parties had already attained finality in earlier litigation when in judgment Ex.P1, decree sheet Ex.P2 and the appellate judgment Ex.P4, the land in question had been held as a Chargah. It was also noticed by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiff No.1 was a party in the earlier litigation and had been held to be biswedar of the village. Consequently, it was held that the plea raised by the defendants was barred by the principles of res judicata.

Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and their suit was decreed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact 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.

April 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD 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.