Dismissed

Maya Devi v. Municipal Corp. Hansi

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2009RSA/2172/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The appellant claimed land purchase but failed to prove the disputed area fell within the referenced Khasra No. 922 despite demarcation report submission. Lower courts' factual findings were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Suit for permanent injunction dismissed; appeal dismissed. No costs.

Maya Devi Vs Municipal Corp. Hansi — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

-1-

¶2

R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:02.07.2009.

Maya Devi

...Appellant

Versus

Municipal Corporation, Hansi

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

AJAY TEWARI, J.

¶15

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff – appellant for permanent injunction. The case set up was that the plaintiff – appellant had purchased the land measuring 35 Sq. Yards from Nar Singh Dass and that she was in possession of the same and that due to enmity with the Municipal Councillor of the area, the Municipal Council, Hansi wanted to encroach upon her shop. Reliance was placed upon the jamabandi, sale deed, site plan and the demarcation report. The learned Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff – appellant holding that she has not been able to establish that the area in dispute is in Khasra No.922. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the demarcation was done by a revenue official and, thus, the learned Courts below have erred in ignoring the same.

¶16

In my opinion, this is a pure question of fact. The reasons

¶17

-2-

¶18

R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M)

¶19

mentioned by the learned lower Appellate Court for not giving effect to the demarcation report can, by no stretch of imagination be termed as perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following legal questions: -

¶20

i) Whether in a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction only the question of possession over the land in question has to be ascertained or not?

¶21

ii) Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and the identity of the land in dispute stands proved from the document available on the file (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5) when no contrary evidence has been led by the respondent?

¶22

iii) Whether the presumption of truth is not attached to the entries in the Jamabandi showing the possession of the appellant over the suit land?

¶23

iv) Whether the learned Courts below have not erred in ignoring the material evidence on record?

¶24

v) Whether the finding recorded by the Courts below are based on misreading of the evidence?

¶25

In my opinion, questions Nos.(ii) to (v) are pure questions

¶26

of fact, the answer to which would necessarily depend upon the correctness of the demarcation report on which I have given m y opinion above.

¶27

No arguments have been addressed on question No.1. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶29

July 02, 2009 vinod

Maya Devi v. Municipal Corp. Hansi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. Municipal Corp. Hansi

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

Anil Sood etc. Vs Urinder Singh etc.

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ishwar Chand Jain Vs Punjab & Haryana High Court and Anr.

Harbans Singh Chahal Vs Union of India

Lila Dhar Vs Bhagat Ram

Pali Ram Vs Robin and Ors.