Bharat Singh appealed against dismissal of a suit for injunction. The High Court held that the lower courts' findings of fact were not perverse nor based on no evidence, and dismissed both the appeal and the stay application.
The appeal and the application for stay were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 2962 of 2008(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2962 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 07, 2009
Bharat Singh and another
...... Appellants
Versus
Bhatheri and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing them on the ground that they had inherited the land by virtue of will of Smt.Surta.
The following questions have been proposed:-
a) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the courts
below are tenable in law?
b) Whether the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse?
c) Whether when the defendants have categorically admitted Smt. Surta to be owner of house in question in their
RSA No. 2962 of 2008(O&M)
2
written statement, then can the plaintiffs be non-suited on the ground that Smt.Surta was not the owner of the said house?
d) Whether an electricity bill produced to show the possession of the plaintiffs can be disbelieved on the ground that it does not find mention the father's and village's name?
It would be seen that all the questions are questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C.
Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are
dismissed.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
September 07, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether judgments and decrees of courts below are tenable in law?
Whether findings of courts below are perverse?
Whether a non-suit is justified when defendants admitted ownership?
Bharat Singh
Bhatheri
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
