Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGJIT SINGH versus KHUSHAL SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAGJIT SINGH v. KHUSHAL SINGH & Ors - CR-3307-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 34 (6 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION NO.3307 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2006

JAGJIT SINGH .........PETITIONER

VERSUS

KHUSHAL SINGH AND OTHERS ........RESPONDENTS COARM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

PRESENT:- Shri G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Harsh Banger, Advocate for the respondent.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below whereby he is restrained from interfering into peaceful the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

The plaintiff was the purchaser of land measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 11.9.1997 and 5 Kanals 2 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 9.9.1997. Still later, there was a registered exchange deed dated 22.11.2002 whereby land measuring 5 Kanals 2 Marlas was exchanged with Kashmir Singh. Thus, it was the case CIVIL REVISION NO.3307 of 2003 [2]

of the plaintiff that he is owner in possession of 9 Kanals 3 Marlas of land.

Both the Courts below have granted ad interim injunction relying upon the documents of sale and exchange produced by the plaintiff.

It has also been found that the defendants have sold three Kanals of land although defendant No.1 the present petitioner was in possession of 2 Kanals 1-1/2 Marlas of land .

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no document on the record to show that the plaintiff is in possession of land on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the revenue record prior to the said sale records vendor of the plaintiff in possession of the suit land. Since vendor of the plaintiff is recorded in possession of the suit land, inference is that the vendor has delivered possession to the plaintiff at the time of sale of the suit land.

In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

JANUARY 20, 2006 ( HEMANT GUPTA )

ks 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.