Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATI RAM versus SARDAR SINGH & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rati Ram v. Sardar Singh & Anr - RSA-3891-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 900 (17 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.3891 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:February 27,2006

Rati Ram

....Appellant

VERSUS

Sardar Singh and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The defendant is in appeal.

A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that they were joint owners of Plot No.38 and the defendants had no right to interfere in the said plot.

The defendant contested the suit and claimed that the dimensions given by the plaintiff with regard to plot No.38 were wrong. It was specifically maintained by the defendant that although plot No.38 belongs to the plaintiffs but its measurement were 633 square yards.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by ignoring the dimensions given by them but held that plot No.38 measuring 633 square yards was the ownership of the plaintiffs and they were in possession thereof. Consequently, the defendants were restrained not to interfere in the aforesaid plot in any manner.

The defendant took up the matter in appeal. The learned First Appellate Court re-examined the entire evidence and came to the similar conclusions. However, it appears that in the judgment certain observations have been made which might prejudice the interest of the defendant. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court reads as under: "15. If the calculation is made on the basis of the dimensions claimed by the parties towards eastern side, in view of the defendant the eastern side is measuring 69 feet. His claim is admitted to be correct within the area of the plot No.38 comes to 633 square yards and if the eastern side of the plot is taken as 89 feet long then it shall come to near about 727 sq. yards. Therefore, the ld. Lower court has rightly considered the eastern side of the plot at 69 feet because the plaintiffs are well within their rights to remain in possession of plot No.38 measuring 633 sq. yards. In this way, the lawful possession of the plaintiffs over the plot No.38 measuring 633 sq.

yards deserves to be protected from any

encroachment or interference.

16. Thus, it is held that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land comprised in plot No.38 measuring 633 sq. yards whereas, the

defendant/appellant is in possession of the land measuring 136 sq. yards comprised in plot No.39/458. None of the party has any right to interfere in the ownership and possession of each other. It has rightly been held by the ld. Lower court that defendant has no right to interfere in the plot of the plaintiffs or to dispossess them therefrom forcibly and illegally."

The defendant has come up before this Court claiming that some observations made by the learned First Appellate Court are likely/ to prejudice the ownership of the defendant qua his own land.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that only claim of the plaintiffs which has been decreed is with regard to plot No.38 measuring 633 square yards. It is the admitted position that the defendant does not claim any interest/ right in the aforesaid plot or claim any possession of the aforesaid plot. Therefore, when the defendant himself is not claiming any interest/rights in plot No.38 measuring 633 square yards, then the decree passed by the two Courts below cannot adversely affect any rights of the defendant. It is further clarified that it is only the operative portion, noticed above, which shall operate against the defendant and no observations made by the learned First Appellate Court in the body of judgment shall be taken into consideration at any stage.

With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed.

February 27, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD 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.