High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Smt. Kashmir Kaur & Ors v. Smt. Balwinder Kaur & Anr - RSA-2291-2004  RD-P&H 2805 (2 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH
R.S.A. No.2291of 2004
Date of decision: March 31,2006
Smt. Kashmir Kaur and others V. Smt. Balwinder Kaur and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Jagdeep Chaudhary,Advocate, for the appellants.
Shri B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.
This order shall dispose of four second appeal being R.S.As.
No.2291 to 2294 of 2004 as all the appeals filed by Smt. Kashmir Kaur and others and have arisen out of four civil suits arising between the parties.
Civil Suit No.470-C was filed by Amrik Singh (since dead) now represented by his Lrs Smt. Balwinder Kaur and others. The aforesaid suit was for permanent injunction for restraining Kashmir Kaur and Nirmaljit Singh ( husband of Kashmir Kaur) from interfering in the possession of Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh claimed that he was a tenant Gair Marusi and could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. This suit was with regard to 18 kanals and 4 marlas of land.
As a counter claim Civil Suit No.495 of 1993 was filed by Kashmir Kaur seeking possession of the suit land. It was pleaded by Kashmir Kaur that Amrik Singh was in unauthorised possession of the suit property and was claiming himself to be a tenant but was never so inducted by her .
Another suit being Civil Suit No.851-C of 1993 was filed by Amrik Singh with regard to land measuring 59 kanals 6 marlas. This suit was also for permanent injunction and was filed by Nirmaljit Singh husband of present appellant, Kashmir Kaur.
As a counter claim to this suit, Nirmaljit Singh filed a civil suit R.S.A.2291 of 2004 2
No.494 of 1993 seeking possession of the suit land. In this suit, Nirmaljit Singh also claimed that Amrik Singh was in unauthorised possession.
The learned trial court in all the aforesaid four suits held that Amrik Singh was not shown to be a tenant over the suit land. Consequently, the two suits filed by Kashmir Kaur and Nirmaljit Singh for possession of the suit property were decreed whereas the civil suits filed by Amrik Singh for permanent injunction were dismissed.
Amrik Singh filed four separate appeals before the first appellate Court. He claimed tenancy over the suit property. The learned first appellate court reappraised the entire evidence. It held that the status of Amrik Singh as a tenant Gair Marusi over the suit land was proved and as such he could not be ejected from the suit property except in due course of law. Consequently, the appeals filed by Amrik Singh were allowed. As a result thereof, the two suits filed by Amrik Singh were decreed and a permanent injunction was issued against defendants, Nirmaljit Singh an Kahsmir Kaur, whereas the two suits for possession filed by Kashmir Kaur and Nirmaljit Singh were dismissed.
In these circumstances, Kashmir Kaur in her own right and others as Lrs of Nirmaljit Singh deceased have filed the present four appeals.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
The learned first appellate Court has found it as a fact that Amrik Singh was a tenant over the suit property and as such could not be dispossessed except in due course of law.
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 appeals.
March 31,2006 (Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.