Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARAMJIT SINGH versus WAKF BOARD, AMBALA & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Paramjit Singh v. Wakf Board, Ambala & another - RSA-5481-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 722 (14 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.5481 of 2003

Date of Decision : February 03, 2006.

Paramjit Singh .... Appellant

Vs.

Wakf Board, Ambala & another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr.Anand Chhibber, Advocate

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff has lost before the learned first appellate court.

He is in second appeal.

The plaintiff filed suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of property measuring 3 kanals and 14 marlas and that the defendant Wakf Board had no authority to interfere in his possession. The revenue entries in the Board were illegal and wrong and not binding upon his rights.

The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated August 08, 1952 and since that time, he is continuing its possession.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed by the trial court. Although the relief for declaration was denied to him, but holding that he was in possession of the suit land, an injunction was issued to the defendants not to dispossess him except in due course of law.

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court re- examined the entire controversy. It was noticed that on earlier occasion R.S.A.No.5481 of 2003 : 2 :

also, the plaintiff had filed a suit. However, the said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn later on. However, no permission was ever sought by him at any point of time, to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

Consequently, the learned first appellate court found that the present suit, filed by him, was not even legally maintainable. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

From the perusal of the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court, it is apparent that even the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. However, since no appeal was filed by Wakf Board, before the first appellate court, the limited relief granted by the trial court was maintained.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

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

Dismissed.

February 03, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.