Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAMMA & ANOTHER versus MAJID MOHAMMAD & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gamma & another v. Majid Mohammad & another - RSA-1712-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 629 (8 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.1712 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 17, 2006.

Gamma & another .... Appellants

Vs.

Majid Mohammad & another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Gurmail Singh, Advocate

for Mr.Dinesh Jangra, Advocate

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

The defendants are in appeal.

A suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction with regard to House No.1242 has been dismissed by the learned trial court.

However, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court found that the plaintiffs were proved to be the owners in possession of House No.1242 and that the defendants were not claiming any rights in the said house. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and their suit was decreed.

It is clear from the perusal of the record that defendants are claiming themselves to be owners in possession of plot numbers 130 and 131, which are adjacent to House No.1242. In these circumstances, when the plaintiffs are not claiming any rights in the plots no.130 and 131 and even the defendants are not claiming any right over the House No.1242, belonging to the plaintiff, then obviously, the defendants have no grievance to make against the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate court.

R.S.A.No.1712 of 2005 : 2 :

The decree which has been passed by the learned first appellate court is only qua House no.1242. The defendants can not be held to claim that under the garth of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon the plots no.130 and 131.

However, as and when any encroachment is made by the plaintiffs over the property of the defendants, they have to seek their remedy in accordance with 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 appeal.

Dismissed.

February 17, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.