High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gram Sabha Kundli & Anr v. Ram Chander & Ors - RSA-2807-2004  RD-P&H 749 (14 February 2006)
RSA No.2807 of 2004(O&M)
Date of Decision: 7.02.2006
Gram Sabha Kundli and another
Ram Chander and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellants Shri Vikram Punia, Advocate respondent Nos.6 and 7 JUDGMENT
C.M. No.6742-C of 2004
In view of reasons given in application, which is supported by an affidavit, it is allowed and 3 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.
RSA No.2807 of 2004
Appellants filed a suit claiming decree of declaration, by stating that the gram panchayat be declared owner and in possession of the property, in dispute, description of which was given in their plaint. A further challenge was laid to the gift deed dated 8.6.1988, sale deed dated 14.6.1988, mutation dated 30.5.1997 and another sale deed dated 11.6.1997, to say that above mentioned transactions have no bearing so far as rights of the appellants are concerned. Record reveals that during pendency of the suit, by moving an application, claim regarding ownership was abandoned.
Suit was dismissed. In appeal, counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 made a statement that they were not in possession of the land, description of which was given in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. It was further stated that they have also no connection with the land measuring 211 kanals which finds mention in paragraph No.4 of the plaint and a prayer was made that the appeal be disposed of in terms of the statement made. Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants has accepted the statement made by counsel for the respondents and prayed that appeal be disposed of as per statement made by counsel for the respondents. Appellate Court below, by taking note of the statements made by the parties, modified the findings given by the trial Court so far as land shown in paragraph Nos.2 and 4 of the plaint is concerned.
Contention of counsel for the appellants that no finding regarding ownership has been given, in view of facts mentioned above, does not survive. Judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court below are perfectly justified and need no interference. No substantial question of law has been raised by counsel for the appellants at the time of arguments.
February 7, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.