Appeal against concurrent dismissals of a suit seeking declaration that a prior decree regarding land ownership was null and void. Court held findings on factual ownership were not perverse or perverse, dismissing the appeal.
The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
R.S.A No. 4323 of 2004
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A No. 4323 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : September 10, 2009
Ram Phal,
...... Appellant (s)
v.
Zilu and others,
...... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
**3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *****
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 passed in a civil suit filed by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff/appellant.
Both the Courts below have found that as the appellant was not in possession of the land and had no rights therein, the said judgment and decree could not be said not to affect any rights allegedly claimed by him.
Following questions have been proposed :-
::2::
R.S.A No. 4323 of 2004
“ a) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law and the plaintiff duly proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that he is owner in possession over the suit land?
b) Whether the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.722 of 1993 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff ?”
It would be seen that question No.(a) is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Once question No. (a) is held against the appellant, question No.(b) does not arise. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending
civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) September 10, 2009. JUDGE `kk'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law?
Whether the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.722 of 1993 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff?
Ram Phal
Zilu and others
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
