Dismissed

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru v. Gram Panchayat, Mahi Nangal

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2009RSA/2601/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a lower appellate decree granting permanent injunction to the appellant. The High Court affirmed the decree, noting that the plaintiff's long possession was safeguarded and adverse possession was incorrectly raised by the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court affirming the permanent injunction is upheld.

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru Vs Gram Panchayat… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No. 2601 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No. 2601 of 2009 Date of decision:- 3.11.2009

¶5

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru situated at Mahi Nangal

¶6

appellant

¶7

¶8

Gram Panchayat, Village Mahi Nangal

¶9

Respondent

¶10

Present: Ms.Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶15

CM 7684 and 7686 C of 2009

¶16

For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Cms stand disposed of.

¶17

RSA 2601 of 2009

¶18

The plaintiff- appellant has been proved to be in continuous un- interrupted and peaceful possession of the property in dispute to the knowledge of the defendant- respondent. The courts below have held that the plea of adverse possession is not available to the plaintiff but it can be raised as a plea in defence. The lower appellate court has safe-guarded the long possession of the plaintiff-appellant by granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant except by due course of law.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that till date

¶20

RSA No. 2601 of 2009

¶21

¶22

no steps have been taken by any one to dispossess the plaintiff- appellant from the land in dispute.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the lower appellate court has safe-guarded the possessory interest of the plaintiff- appellant by granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant- respondent. It has rightly been held by the courts below that the plea of adverse possession is not available to the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession seems to have been wrongly raised by the plaintiff before the courts below.

¶24

Dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is hereby affirmed. In case any step is taken by the defendantrespondent jeopardizing the rights of the plaintiff-appellant, all the pleas of defence, including that of adverse possession would be available to the appellant to be raised and adjudicated. Findings of the courts below on issue No.1 will not prejudice the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this appeal.

¶25

November 3 ,2009 TSM

¶26

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru v. Gram Panchayat, Mahi Nangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudwara Sahib Tenth Guru v. Gram Panchayat, Mahi Nangal

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

Mahipal Singh Vs Rajesh Kumar

Bota Singh Alias Sandeep Singh Vs Mohinder Singh

Kanwaljit Kaur Vs Manjeet Pal Singh

Agroha Vikas Trust Agroha Vs Ram Bilas and Ors.

Giani Ram Vs Devender Singh and Ors.

Municipal Council, Sonepat Vs Deepak Co-Operative Society