Dismissed

Jai Pal Singh v. Kesho Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Mar 2015RSA/624/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against a judgment affirming trial court findings. The bench held that a proved compromise deed entitled respondents to use a path over the appellant's land and found no illegality, perversity, or error warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and pending application(s) dismissed; judgment and decree under challenge affirmed.

Jai Pal Singh Vs Kesho Ram — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

RSA No.624 of 2014

¶3

Date of Decision : March 18, 2015

¶4

Jai Pal Singh & another ….Appellants. versus Kesho Ram & others …Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.

¶7

Sanjay Karol, Judge

¶8

Appellants have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.56-N/13 of 2013, titled as Jai Pal Singh & another v. Kesho Ram & others, whereby judgment and decree dated 19.9.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Court NO.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.77/1 of 2009, titled as as Jai Pal Singh & another v. Kesho Ram & others, stands affirmed.

¶9

…2…

¶10

Plaintiffs, appellants herein, filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, respondents herein. As owners in possession of the suit land, plaintiffs resisted adverse actions on the part of the defendants. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

¶11

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP

¶12

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

¶13

Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD

¶14

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from their act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD

¶15

Whether there exists a path over the suit land as shown in the site plan attached with the written statement and is the only path for ingress and egress to the defendants and Anganwari Centre and to the people of village Budi, if so, its effect? OPD

¶16

Relief.

¶17

Trial Court, while answering the issues, after

¶18

careful appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs themselves had entered into a compromise deed, in terms of which defendants were entitled to use the path existing over the suit land, in

¶19

…3…

¶20

terms of site plan (Ex. DW-2/A). Findings returned by the trial Corut stand affirmed by the lower Appellate Court on all issues, except on Issue No.2. The lower Appellate Court has held the suit to be maintainable.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out.

¶22

The terms of compromise, duly entered into between the parties, stand proved not only through the unimpeachable testimony of defendants’ witnesses but also admission so made by the plaintiff. Compromise dated 9.9.2008 bears the signatures of the parties, since when defendants have been utilizing the path for ingress and egress to different places.

¶23

As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court.

¶24

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

Jai Pal Singh v. Kesho Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pal Singh v. Kesho Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leelawati Vs Satish Rathore

Raghu Nath Singh Vs State

Leelawati Vs Satish Rathore

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ms Universal Estate Vs Naveen Kumar

Som Dutt Vs Krishanu Ram