Dismissed

Sarjeet etc. v. Rattan etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2009RSA/4225/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal challenging a permanent injunction decree was dismissed. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, which relied on the Local Commissioner's report to establish that the respondents had a superior possessory title and were entitled to possession.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the decree for permanent injunction and possession in favor of the respondents was affirmed.

Sarjeet etc. Vs Rattan etc. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009 Decided on: November 19, 2009.

Sarjeet etc.

.. Appellants

VERSUS

Rattan Singh and another.

.. Respondents

CORAM:

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

¶12

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

Whether to be referred to the Reporter?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

PRESENT Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶17

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

¶18

Vide the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent injunction has been decreed relying upon the report of Local Commissioner EX.PW2/H. The Courts below have held that the land in dispute bears Ahata No.5, Ghar No.5, and that the defendantsappellants have got no concern with the land in dispute which had been in possession of the plaintiffs. It has also been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs had been wrongly dispossessed by

¶19

. . . 1

¶20

R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009

¶21

the defendants during pendency of the suit, as such, the plaintiffsrespondents are entitled to the possession over the suit land and that the defendants-appellants are liable to remove the encroachments made by them over the property in dispute.

¶22

Counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that the report of Local Commissioner regarding demarcation is not sustainable in law as the fixed points had not been choosen in accordance with law. He also claims that the defendants-appellants have been able to establish better possessory title than the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶23

After hearing counsel for the defendants-appellants, at length, and going through the judgments and decrees and the observations of the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence regarding report of Local Commissioner and other facts, no substantial question of law seems to be arising in the present case warranting interference in the second appeal. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that the defendants have not been able to establish better possessory title over the property in dispute which stands clearly depicted in the plaint and established by the report of Local Commissioner.

¶24

I also do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the appellants that the property has not been clearly described or identified before passing the decree.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶27

November 19, 2009.

¶28

. . . 2

¶29

R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009

¶30

rka

¶31

. . . 3

Sarjeet etc. v. Rattan etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjeet etc. v. Rattan 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

Daljeet Kaur Vs Darbara Singh

Rama Nand Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Surinder Singh and Ors. Vs Election Tribunal Ludhiana and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Municipal Committee. Barwala

Karnail Singh Vs Mewa Singh

Guddi and Anr. Vs Hemant and Anr.