Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALDEV SINGH & ANR versus SANTOKH SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Baldev Singh & Anr v. Santokh Singh & Ors - RSA-2309-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 869 (16 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 2309 of 2003

Date of Decision: February 2, 2006

Baldev Singh and another

.....Appellants

Vs.

Santokh Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate

for respondents No.10 to 14 and 17.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiffs are in appeal. They filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession to the extent of half share of the land measuring 20 kanals 2 marlas and also suit for permanent injunction from restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land.

The plaintiff relied upon two sale deed Exs.P.1 and P.2 to claim title to the suit property.

The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendants. The learned first Appellate R.S.A. No. 2309 of 2003 [2]

Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that although the sale deeds Exs P.1 and P.2 are registered documents, but same do not show that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from the Central Government. It was also noticed that the suit land continued to be recorded as property of the Central Government. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court qua title of the plaintiffs was reversed but permanent injunction was issued against the defendants for not dispossessing the plaintiffs except in due course of law.

The plaintiffs have now approached this Court through the present appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court has duly considered the documentary evidence on the record to held that the tile of the plaintiffs was not proved, although their possession was proved and on that account a permanent injunction was issued against the defendants.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 2, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.