Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARDARI LAL & ORS. versus NANAK CHAND SON OF GURDIAL.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sardari Lal & Ors. v. Nanak Chand son of Gurdial. - RSA-13-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1055 (21 February 2006)

R.S.A. NO.13 OF 2003 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.13 OF 2003

DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 07, 2006

Sardari Lal & Others.

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Nanak Chand son of Gurdial.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT:- Shri R.C. Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Shri S.K. Bawa, Advocate, for the Appellants.

Shri Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the Respondent.

. . .

JUDGMENT (Oral):

Shri R.C. Dogra, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants has contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was merely for permanent injunction for restraining defendant, Nanak Chand, from raising any construction on the suit property during the pendency of the partition proceedings. Shri Dogra has relied upon Judgment and Decree dated January 6, 1989, Ex. P-2 vide which the claim for joint possession had been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the property was held to be joint between the parties.

Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the suit in question had been filed by the plaintiffs on December 12, 1997 and even at the time of filing of the suit, defendant, Nanak Chand had completed the construction on the site in question.

Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel very fairly states that the defendant does not wish to raise any further construction till the partition proceedings are R.S.A. NO.13 OF 2003 [2]

finalised between the parties.

The statement of Shri Sarju Puri, learned counsel for the respondent fully satisfies the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

In view of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of and it is directed that the defendant/respondent shall not raise any further construction on the suit property till the partition proceedings are finalised between the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to take all such pleas before the partitioning authorities as are available to them in accordance with law.

The main appeal stands disposed of.

(VINEY MITTAL)

MARCH 07, 2006 JUDGE

avin


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.