Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAYAHRA RUDRI CHHOTA TALAB versus DAYA KISHAN & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gayahra Rudri Chhota Talab v. Daya Kishan & Anr - RSA-541-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 937 (17 February 2006)

R.S.A. No. 541 of 2002 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 541 of 2002

Date of Decision: February 21, 2006

Gayahra Rudri Chhota Talab

.....Appellant

Vs.

Daya Kishan and another

.....Respondents

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

for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff- Gayahra Rudri Chhota Talab alias Mandir Mahadev Chhota Talab (for short `the Mandir') has filed the present appeal through an alleged worshipper Mansa Ram. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff Mandir through the aforesaid worshipper Mansa Ram. It was claimed that defendant No.2 Indraj son of Lal Chand is in actual possession of the suit property claiming himself to be the tenant of the suit property at the rate of Rs.30 per month and defendant No.1 Daya Kishan claimed to be his landlord. Both the defendants were alleged to have colluded with each other in order to grab the property belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the property in question belongs to the Mandir and that the defendants have no right to claim any right in the suit property.

R.S.A. No. 541 of 2002 [2]

The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed by them that a house bearing No. 163/ MCK in Pundri is owned by defendant No.1. The said house is two storied. Defendant No.2 Indraj is in possession of the suit property as a tenant under him since long on a payment of Rs.60 per month on rent and house tax. It was further claimed by the defendants that suit property had devolved upon defendant No.1 from his mother Smt. Kalawati. Ownership of the plaintiff over the property was denied.

Both the Courts below have found that plaintiff was not shown to be owner of the suit property in any manner. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court and its appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

Besides the fact that findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below are not shown to be erroneous in any manner, it is also clear that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff Mandir through Mansa Ram. No authority has been placed on the record of the learned trial Court or before this Court to show that Mansa Ram had any right to file the suit in question or the present appeal on behalf of the plaintiff Mandir.

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

Dismissed.

February 21, 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.