Dismissed

Ram Dia v. Kehar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2009RSA/3992/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment dismissed the revision petition against a decree granting injunction restraining carving out a passage. The bench upheld concurrent findings that no passage existed and the respondent had a remedy to seek passage from the revenue officer, finding no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed as no substantial question of law arises; defendant-appellant free to seek other remedies.

Ram Dia Vs Kehar Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No.3992 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No.3992 of 2009. Decided on: November 05, 2009.

Ram Dia

.. Appellant

VERSUS

Kehar Singh

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction has been decreed by the Courts below restraining the defendantappellant from carving out any rasta/passage through the suit land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas comprising of Rectangle No.54, Killa No.26, situated within the revenue estate of village Balbehra, as per the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, giving a finding of fact after taking into consideration (EX.P4) Aks Shhajra, the admission of DW.1 appellant-defendant and the order of consolidation Officer (EX.D1), to the effect that the passage comprising of Khasra Nos.677 and 678, as shown in EX.P4, do not touch each other. It

¶14

. . . 1

¶15

RSA No.3992 of 2009

¶16

was further held that had the defendant been a co-sharer in the suit land comprising in Killa No.26, he would certainly have a right to use the suit land comprising in Killa No.26 for the purpose of ingress and egress for and to his land. If there is no passage leading to the land comprising in Killa No.14/2 and 17 of Killa No.54, owned by the defendant, he has got a remedy to approach the competent revenue/Consolidation Officer for providing a passage to his land. In view of the concurrent finding of fact regarding the non-existence of any passage in the land in dispute, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

¶17

Dismissed as no substantial question of law arise

¶18

for adjudication.

¶19

However, defendant-appellant will be at liberty to opt for other remedies available to him for seeking his right to use the property in dispute as passage.

¶20

(M.M.S.BEDI)

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

November 05, 2009. rka

¶23

. . . 2

Ram Dia v. Kehar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dia v. Kehar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Jal Kaur & Anr. Vs Kirpal Singh & Ors.

Usha Rani Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Rehmati Vs Aamin & Ors.

Raj Bala Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Mehal Singh Vs Dharminder Kaur & Ors.