Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Kishan etc. v. Gurditta - RSA-1543-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 748 (14 February 2006)


RSA No.1543 of 2004

Date of Decision: 20.02.2006

Parties Name

Ram Kishan etc.





Present: Shri Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellants JUDGMENT

Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the appellants-defendants be restrained from interfering in the land bearing khasra No.8562, measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas, owned by him.

It is an admitted fact that so far as land, referred to above, is concerned, the appellants-defendants are not claiming any right in the said property. Suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court solely on the ground that there was an earlier litigation between the parties and as he( respondent) has failed to disclose the same in his plaint, he was held not entitled to get any relief. To that extent, finding given by the trial RSA No.1543 of 2004 -2

Court, is not justified and the same has rightly been reversed by the appellate Court below.

Record reveals that the earlier litigation was with respect to different khasra Nos., which ultimately was held to be in the ownership of the appellants-defendants. Appellate Court below, while reversing the judgment of the trial Court has held thus:- "8. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that from the revenue records, it was proved that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and the fact is clear in copies of Jamabandi Ex.P3 and Khasra girdawari Ex.P2. The judgment Ex.D1 has been mis-interpretted by the ld. trial court. Previous suit was filed by the defendant in respect of land measuring 15 marlas 7 sirsahis out of khasra no.19517, 8539 min, 8540 comprised in khewat khatoni No.2649/2840. Present suit has been filed for 8 kanals 8 marlas comprised in khasra no.8562 which is in possession of the plaintiff as per the revenue record.

In the previsous suit, the court had observed as under:- "Contention of the defendant is kthat he purchased 8 kanals 10 marlas of land from Rehabilitation Department vide registered sale deed Ex.D1 and is in possession of that land only as per sale deed Ex.D1, the defendant purchased 8 kanals 8 marlas of land out of khasra No.8562. The Naksha prepared by PW2 Surinder Nath, Kanungo is Ex.P2. It shows that khasra No.8562 which is owned by Gurditta Mal, defendant vide sale deed Ex.D1, lies on the right side of the land of the plaintiffs.

The naksha Ex.P2 also shows that 15 marlas 7 sarsahis of land of the plaintiff which adjoins Khasra No.8562 is under the possession of the defendant".

This Court feels that the order passed by the appellate Court below is perfectly justified and needs no interference. Apprehension of counsel for appellants that under the garb of this decree, the respondent may try to defeat their rights, which have accrued to them, on the basis of earlier judgment passed inter-se the parties, is ill-founded. Appellants will be at liberty to execute the said judgment and decree, as per law.


February 20, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.