Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Nirmal Singh v. Bagich - RSA-72-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 4301 (18 July 2006)

RSA No. 72 of 2002 (1)


RSA No. 72 of 2002

Date of Decision: 24.7.2006

Nirmal Singh ...Appellant


Bagich ....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri K.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the appellant.


The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from demolishing the wall marked AB, was dismissed.

One of the issues framed was `whether the property in dispute is a Sham-lat property owned by the Gram Panchayat' Though both the Courts have returned a finding that there is no evidence to return a finding that the property is owned by the Gram Panchayat, but the said question could not be gone into by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to determine the question whether a particular property is Sham-lat land or not.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the basis of finding returned on Issue No.4 that once the land is not found to be Sham- lat, the finding that the passage is a common passage, could not have been recorded. It has been found that the plaintiff has purchased the property in dispute on 10.4.1994 vide sale deed Exhibit P.2, whereas the witnesses of RSA No. 72 of 2002 (2)

the plaintiff have deposed that the passage was constructed and brick paved 10/12 years ago. Thus, it is apparent that the passage was bricked paved much before the purchase of the land by the appellant. Even the Local Commissioner in his report Exhibit D.4 has found that there is 4 feet wide brick paved passage on the southern side of the house of the defendant and there is a drain as well.

The said finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

24.7.2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.