Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAM CHAND versus GUGAN & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharam Chand v. Gugan & Ors - RSA-5158-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 923 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 5158 of 2003

Date of Decision: February 7, 2006

Dharam Chand

.....Appellant

Vs.

Gugan and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. J.S. Dhull, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.J.S. Yadav, Advocate

for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. He filed a suit for possession by way of partition. It was claimed by him that the property in question was joint between the parties and the plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share.

The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the parties had remained in separate possession of their shares for a period of more than 30 years and during the life time of their fathers, Salag Ram, the defendants had raised a construction of a residential house, which had R.S.A. No. 5158 of 2003 [2]

remained in existence of more than 30 years. It was claimed that at no point of time, the plaintiff had ever raised any objection.

Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the parties were in separate possession of their share for a period of more than 30 years and the defendants had even raised construction of pacca house in the portion falling to their share. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

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 7, 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.