Allowed

Bhushan Pal v. Mohan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2006RSA/1864/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a permanent injunction, the court noted an apparent error in the lower courts recording the passage width as 4 feet 6 inches instead of 4 feet as per the sale deed. Satisfied there was no substantial question of law otherwise, the court clarified that the passage should be read as 4 feet.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that the passage width should be read as 4 feet instead of 4 feet 6 inches; appeal disposed accordingly.

Bhushan Pal Vs Mohan Lal — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

[1]

¶2

R.S.A.No.1864 of 2004 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A.No.1864 of 2004 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 16.10.2006.

Bhushan Pal

.....Appellant

versus

Mohan Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

¶12

Present : Mr.Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

-.-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (oral)

¶17

C.M.No.7066-C of 2005.

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the order dated 12.4.2005 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number.

¶19

C.M.No.9445-C of 2006.

¶20

CM is allowed. The documents are permitted to be taken on

¶21

record.

¶22

R.S.A.No.1864 of 2004.

¶23

The plaintiffs is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby decree for permanent injunction in respect of the alleged passage claimed by the defendant, was declined.

¶24

It has been found that previous judgment and decree dated 4.3.1997, Exhibit D-3 and D-4 recognize that there is a passage. Such passage is reflected in the sale deed executed by Kartar Kaur in favour of

¶25

R.S.A.No.1864 of 2004 (O&M) [2]

¶26

the plaintiff in the year 1975 and in favour of the defendant in the year 1976. The said sale deeds were subject matter in the earlier suit wherein right of passage of the defendant was recognized.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the sale deed Exhibit DW-4/1, there is interpolation. It is pointed out that in sale deed, the passage described is 4 feet, whereas the Courts below have taken the passage as 4 feet 6 inches. Therefore, on merits, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below which may raise any substantial question of law in the second appeal, for consideration of this Court. However, there seems to be a mistake in describing the passage as 4 feet 6 inches by the Courts below, which should be read as 4 feet. Learned counsel for the defendants has no objection if the clarification as regards width of the passage is concerned, is granted.

¶28

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

October 9, 2006.

¶30

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶31

*mohinder

Bhushan Pal v. Mohan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Pal v. Mohan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkash Ram Vs Yashpal Sharma

Ajay and Ors. Vs Raj Kuamr

Pavittar Singh and Anr. Vs Parmatma Kaur and Ors.

State of Hy. Vs Santra

Jai Pal Vs Babu Ram & Ors.

Supinder Singh Vs Mohan Singh