Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GORDHAN RAM @ GORDHAN LAL versus SMT.VIJAY DEVI & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GORDHAN RAM @ GORDHAN LAL v SMT.VIJAY DEVI & ORS. - CSA Case No. 86 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 1407 (19 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR. :::

JUDGMENT

Gordhan Ram. vs.

Smt. Vijay Devi and others.

S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.86/2007

UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2006 PASSED BY SHRI PRAKASH

GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE, CHURU IN

CIVIL APPEAL DECREE NO.33/1999.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 19.3.2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the appellant.

Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents/caveators.

-----

BY THE COURT:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant/defendant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below about the title of the property which was claimed by the plaintiffs to be their. The defendants' plea that they were in possession of the suit property since last 50 years was rejected by both the courts below.

Both the findings of facts are recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence and are not vitiated by any reason.

In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and this second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant may be allowed to stay in the suit property for two years because of the reason that the appellant is an old person as well as is having old possession.

Learned counsel for the respondents/caveators vehemently submitted that the appellant's possession was absolutely illegal and the suit was filed in the year 1981, therefore, no further time may be granted to the appellant in view of the fact that two courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs are owners of the property and are entitled to mesne profits.

I considered this prayer of learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant be granted time upto 31.3.2008 to vacate the suit premises.

Therefore, it is ordered that in case, the appellant furnishes a written undertaking before the trial court within a period of two months from today that he shall hand over the vacant possession to the decree holder by or before 31.3.2008 and shall not part with the possession or sublet the suit premises during this period and shall pay all the mesne profits upto 31.3.2008, entire decreetal amount, costs of suit as awarded by the trial court and the appellate court, if due, within a period of three months from today before the trial court or directly to the decree holder, the decree under challenge shall not be executed till 1.4.2008.

In case of non-compliance of the order or default in payment of amount mentioned above, the decree shall become executable forthwith.

With the aforesaid concession, this appeal is dismissed.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya


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.