Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHABIR versus JAIBIR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahabir v. Jaibir - RSA-1189-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7113 (13 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

===

R.S.A. No. 1189 of 2006

Date of decision: August 10, 2006

Mahabir --- Appellant

Versus

Jaibir --- Respondent

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
-----

PRESENT: Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

-----

JUDGMENT

This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the courts below.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of land measuring 7 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in village Kheri Gagan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. A suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land in view of compromise arrived at in civil suit No. 879-C decided on 15.4.1994 and he is entitled to get the revenue record corrected in his favour accordingly. As a consequential relief of permanent injunction, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from alienating or transferring the land in dispute or causing any type of interference in the possession of the plaintiff.

The defendant did not opt to contest the claim of the plaintiff and was proceeded ex parte before the trial court.

Trial court on a consideration of evidence produced by the plaintiff found the plea of the plaintiff to be false. Not only this, the suit R.S.A. No. 1189 of 2006

was also held to be hopelessly barred by time and was consequently dismissed. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff also failed before the first appellate court.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his plea that the land in dispute came to his share in view of the compromise arrived at in the previous suit decided on 15.4.1994. It was further found as a fact that the suit which was filed on 19.5.2000 was barred by time. The plaintiff had the knowledge of the decree because he was the party to the suit. These findings are based on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Versus Savitri Bai Sapan Gujar and others, A.I.R.

1999 SC 2213, the learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to indicate substantial question of law which arises for determination in this Regular Second Appeal. But the counsel could not point out any. Even no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for the consideration of this Court.

The appeal is consequently dismissed.

( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )

August 10, 2006 JUDGE

*MALIK*


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.