Dismissed

(O&M) Mehar Singh etc. v. Padam Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2009RSA/242/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants against a decree granting injunction for encroachment. The court held that the appeal, pending for over 22 years, lacked any substantial question of law required for its acceptance and was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the defendants against the decree for injunction was dismissed.

(O&M) Mehar Singh etc. Vs Padam Singh etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2009

¶3

Mehar Singh and others

¶4

-----Appellants Vs.

¶5

Padam Singh and another

¶6

----Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

¶8

Present:- Mr. SK Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents.

¶9

Adarsh Kumar Goel ,J.

¶10

This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against decree granted by the courts below for injunction against encroachment of the suit property.

¶11

Case of the respondent-plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of the suit property which was a passage and the defendants were interfering in possession

¶12

of the plaintiffs and wanted to encroach upon the said

¶13

passage.

¶14

RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M)

¶15

¶16

The suit was contested disputing title of the plaintiffs and claiming the suit property to be of the defendants.

¶17

Main issue between the parties was whether the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs or defendants. 5. The trial court decreed the suit. After referring to revenue record comprising of Ex.P1 Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, ExP6 Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 recording the site in dispute to be thorough fare of which the plaintiffs were co-sharers. Plea of the defendants that suit

¶18

property was part of plot purchased by them, was rejected after considering report of Local Commissioner Ex.P2 and site plan Ex.P3. On appeal, findings of the trial court have been affirmed.

¶19

The appeal has been pending for the last more than 22 years. The appeal can be entertained only if there is any substantial question of law. No substantial question of law has been framed. Even during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to frame or show any substantial question of law.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

November 11, 2009 ‘gs’

¶24

(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge

(O&M) Mehar Singh etc. v. Padam Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Mehar Singh etc. v. Padam Singh etc.

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

(O&M) Nirmal Singh etc. Vs Pargan Singh etc.

(O&M) Didar Singh Vs Charan Singh etc.

(O&M) Dault Ram Vs Phul Singh

Charan Jit Grover Vs Ballarpur Industries etc.

Raghunath Rai Vs T Irlochan Singh

(O&M) M/S Amber Woolen Mills etc. Vs Syndicate Bank etc.