Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GANI RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gani Ram v. State of Haryana & another - RSA-5031-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 716 (10 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No. 5031 of 2003

Date of Decision : January 23, 2006.

Gani Ram .... Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana & another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.D.S.Nalwa, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff having lost before the first appellate court, in a suit for permanent injunction, has approached this court through the present appeal.

He filed a suit claiming that defendants have no right to block/close the passage existing at the site.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the land in question had been acquired for construction of workshop and bus-stand and for that, there was a passage from bus-stand to workshop but it was only a private passage of the defendants. The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants.

The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and noticed that Bangu Ram, father of the plaintiff, along with others had filed an earlier suit which was dismissed vide judgment Ex.D-19, decree sheet whereof is Ex.D-20. It was also noticed by the first appellate court that the land in question had been acquired and carved out for the purpose of General Bus Stand and the compensation had already been received by the owners and others. In this view of the matter, it was noticed that claim of the plaintiff that passage in question was left during consolidation proceedings, was totally misconceived. In such circumstances, no rights prior to acquisition could be taken into consideration. Consequently, appeal of the defendants was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

R.S.A.No. 5031 of 2003 : 2 :

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.

January 23, 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.