Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAMLAT PATTI NALVI versus SOHAN SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shamlat Patti Nalvi v. Sohan Singh - RSA-3925-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 690 (9 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.3925 of 2004

Date of Decision : February 16, 2006.

Shamlat Patti Nalvi .... Appellant

Vs.

Sohan Singh .... Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Jaspal Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.P.S.Rana, Advocate

for the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff-Shamlat Patti Nalvi has lost concurrently before the two courts below, in a suit for possession filed by it. It was claimed that the plaintiff-Shamlat Patti was the owner of the suit land and the defendants are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the same.

The suit was contested by the defendants no.3 ad 4. It was admitted by them that Shamlat Patti, Nalvi is owner of the suit property but there are numerous co-sharers in Shamlat Patti. It was further claimed that the suit had been filed by the Shamlat Patti through one Teja Singh, who has never been authorized to file the said suit. It was claimed that Puran Singh was a tenant over the suit land, who had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of defendants no.3 and 4 and possession was with them in the aforesaid capacity. The defendants further maintained that Teja Singh had filed the suit in question on account of party faction in the village.

Both the courts below concurrently found that suit filed by Teja Singh was not shown to have filed on the basis of any authority. No permission had been sought under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing the suit in a representative capacity. Teja Singh himself was held to be not a co-sharer in the suit land, since he was not the original inhabitant of the village.

R.S.A.No.3925 of 2004 : 2 :

Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed by it failed before the learned first appellate court.

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 16, 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.