Appellants filed a revision against a decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The court rejected the appellant's prima facie claims of forcible dispossession and lack of possession evidence, dismissing the revision as devoid of merit.
The civil revision is 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.
1
Civil Revision No. 2509 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Civil Revision No. 2509 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.4.2011 *****
Kalu Ram & Anr.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Roshni Devi.
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
**Present:Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
A decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been passed against the petitioners by dint of impugned judgment dated 2.8.2010. It has been held that the possession from the plaintiffrespondent, of the suit property, was forcibly taken by the petitionerdefendants from the suit property, which is liable to be restored in her favour.
Heard.
It is evident from the perusal of the impugned judgment and both the parties staked their possession over the suit property for the time immemorial and it was the specific case of the plaintiff that when in the year 2007 she along with her children went to Rajasthan for labour work, defendants forcibly and illegally took the possession of the suit property by breaking open the locks. It is apposite to mention here that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are siblings and their own father Bir Singh stepped into the witness box as PW1 and he categorically stated that defendants never remained in possession of the suit property. This witness further stated that
2
Civil Revision No. 2509 of 2011
the suit property was earlier owned by the father-in-law of the plaintiff, who gave it to the husband of the plaintiff and after his death the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of her husband. The plaintiff had been residing in the suit property until she was dispossessed by the defendants from the same. The plaintiff also proved on record that she is resident of village Teek where the suit property is situated and Lambardar of the village appearing as PW4 also supported the claim of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendants failed to prove their long lasting possession over the suit property.
There is no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the Court below. The instant revision, being devoid of any merit, is thus dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
April 19 , 2011 Jiten
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision is maintainable in view of lack of perversity in findings that supports the decree holder's long-standing possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kalu Ram & Anr.
Roshni Devi
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
