Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.BHIRMO & ORS versus DHARAM SINGH & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt.Bhirmo & Ors v. Dharam Singh & Anr - RSA-4447-2002 [2007] RD-P&H 843 (24 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA NO.4447 of 2002

DATE OF DECISION: January 8, 2007

Smt.Bhirmo and others

....Appellants.

VERSUS

Dharam Singh and another

....

Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Vivek Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The defendants, having concurrently lost before the two Courts below, have approached this Court in a regular second appeal.

A suit for possession was filed by plaintiff Dharam Singh. It was claimed by him that he was the owner of the suit land and the defendants had encroached upon 12 marlas of land forcibly and illegally. He sought possession of the said encroached land.

Both the Courts below have relied upon demarcation report Ex.P2 and the site plan Ex.P5 which depict that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and that 12 marlas of the suit land had been encroached upon by the defendants. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants has failed before the Appellate Court.

Moreover,

two Courts below have relied upon earlier judgment between the same parties relating to suit property.

The learned counsel appearing for the defendant- appellants has contended that the findings recorded by the two Courts below are contrary to the record and as such the said findings cannot be sustained. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any such evidence which could lead to the inference that the findings recorded by the two Courts below need any interference or are contrary to the record.

Consequently, I find that the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below with regard to the title of the suit property and encroachment made by the defendants are absolutely justified.

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

Dismissed.

January 8, 2007 (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.