Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALWINDER SINGH & ORS. versus RAMESH KUMAR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balwinder Singh & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar. - RSA-4131-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 5356 (8 August 2006)

Regular Second Appeal No.4131 of 2003.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Regular Second Appeal No.4131 of 2003.

Date of decision:22.8.2006.

Balwinder Singh and others.

...Appellants.

Versus

Ramesh Kumar.

...Respondent.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.Surinder Garg Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Harminder Singh Advocate for the respondent.

...

Judgment.

S. N. Aggarwal, J.

The appellants were the defendants in the civil suit for possession filed by Ramesh Kumar respondent against them. It was pleaded by the respondent that he was the owner of land measuring 6 Kanals comprised in Khasra No.1129/1 situated in village Wara Bhaika. However, the appellants had taken forcible possession from the respondent .Hence,prayer for possession of the suit land was made.

On the other hand, the appellants filed written statement and contested the suit. They claimed to be the owners in possession of the suit land.

The respondent examined himself as PW-1. He also proved Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit P-1 and Jamabandi Exhibit P-2 but the Regular Second Appeal No.4131 of 2003.

appellants did not lead any evidence in support of their version.

However, the learned trial Court held that in revenue record, the respondent was shown to be owner in possession of the suit land and,therefore, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2002.

The respondent filed an appeal. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court held that the respondent was the owner of the suit land while the appellants were in possession of the same.

Accordingly, the findings of the learned trial Court were modified to that extent and the appeal was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2003.

Hence, the present appeal.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that as per revenue record, the respondent was in possession and,therefore, the learned Lower Appellate Court has gone wrong in granting possession in favour of the respondent vide judgment dated 10.4.2003.

This submission has been considered.

Even as per the case of the appellants, they were owners in possession of the suit land. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also held them to be in possession of the suit land which has not been rebutted by the respondent. Accordingly, the findings of fact recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are up-held.

Regular Second Appeal No.4131 of 2003.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

August 22,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi 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.