Regular Second Appeal challenging the decree on permanent prohibitory injunction and possession of suit land. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' findings on ownership and encroachment. No substantial question of law arose.
The appeal is dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RSA No. 269 of 2014-A Date of Decision : October 7 , 2014
| Pritam Chand | …Appellant | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| Shakti Chand | … Respondent |
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the respondent : None.
Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)
This is the defendant’s Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No. 133 of 1999 (RBT No. 473/2004), titled as Shakti Chand vs. Pritam Singh, stands decreed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.3.2012. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stand affirmed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2012, titled as Pritam Singh vs. Shakti
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
Chand, filed by the defendant. Thus, the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact.
“In view of my findings on issues No. 1 to 5 above, suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction is decreed restraining the defendant from interfering or raising any construction over the land comprised in khata No. 473, Khatoni No. 603, khasra No. 3384 area 0K – 10M situated in village Daroghan Bhuran, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur and the suit of plaintiff is decreed for possession of 4 Sarsai of land of the plaintiff which is shown as Khasra No. 7552/3384/1 as per Tatima Ex. OW1/G. Demarcation report shall form part and parcel of decree.”
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3
4
and afforded reasonable opportunity. Not only that testimonies of Shakti Chand (PW-1) and Kaushalya Devi (PW-2) corroborate such fact.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
October 7 , 2014 (PK)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal reveals any substantial question of law or error in the concurrent findings of fact regarding the defendant's encroachment.
Whether the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit land were rightly adjudicated by the courts below.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pritam Chand
Shakti Chand
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
