Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RANDHIR SINGH versus OM PARKASH ALIAS JEET SINGH ....

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Randhir Singh v. Om Parkash alias Jeet Singh .... - RSA-2092-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 661 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.2092 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 07, 2006.

Randhir Singh .... Appellant

Vs.

Om Parkash alias Jeet Singh .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.S.S.Kharb, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate and

Mr.Niranjan Singh, Advocate

for the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant having lost before the first appellate court, has approached this court through the present appeal.

A suit for possession was filed by plaintiff Om Parkash. It was claimed by him that he was the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated July 03, 1984, executed by one Shankar in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Ram Chander. The defendant was in illegal possession of the suit property. Earlier, the defendant had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction which was decreed in his favour and it was directed that he shall not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. The appeal filed by the plaintiff had also been dismissed. Consequently, the present suit for possession was filed in accordance with the liberty granted to the defendant in the earlier suit.

The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

However, the matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence on record and held that the plaintiff was shown to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated R.S.A.No.2092 of 2004 : 2 :

July 03, 1984. The plea raised by the defendant that the present suit was barred by principles of res judicata, was also rejected on the ground that the earlier suit was only for permanent injunction and since the plaintiff had filed the present suit on the basis of his title, the suit was also treated to be within limitation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed.

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 07, 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.