Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI SINGH ALIAS HARI RAM versus RAM NARAIN & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Singh alias Hari Ram v. Ram Narain & Ors - RSA-3604-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 673 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3604 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 06, 2006.

Hari Singh alias Hari Ram .... Appellant Vs.

Ram Narain and others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate

for the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant, having concurrently lost before the two courts below, has approached this court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming that the property between the parties was joint and that the plaintiffs are entitled to separate possession as per their entitlement. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that in the year 1988, an oral family settlement had taken place and by mutual arrangement, the defendant became the exclusive owner of the suit property. The defendant also claimed that he has matured his possession into ownership because of his hostile possession.

Both the courts below have concurrently held that the property in question was joint property between the parties and there was no evidence on record to show that any partition had taken place between the parties as claimed by the defendant. It has also been held that there could be no adverse possession qua joint property since the defendant and the plaintiffs were joint owners. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and the appeal of the defendant failed before the learned first appellate court.

R.S.A.No.3604 of 2005 : 2 :

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below 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 06, 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.