Dismissed

Gurmej Singh v. Sucha Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2011RSA/4618/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a second appeal in a property dispute concerning a tubewell installed on jointly owned land. The court held that the appellant failed to prove exclusive ownership of the tubewell against the presumption of joint ownership and allowed no interference with the findings of courts below.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed in limine; the application for Court fee deficiency was allowed.

Gurmej Singh Vs Sucha Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

RSA No.4618 of 2010(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.4618 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2011

Gurmej Singh

.....Appellant

Sucha Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

.....

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.13696-C of 2010

¶15

Application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee.

¶16

C.M.No.13697-C of 2010

¶17

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4618 of 2010

¶18

The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.2.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which suit filed by respondentplaintiff was decreed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.

¶20

-2-

¶21

RSA No.4618 of 2010(O&M)

¶22

Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining present appellant-defendant from obstructing use of tubewell for irrigating the land of the plaintiff installed in land comprised in Killa No.16 of Rect.185 situated in Village Kahnuwan, Hadbast No.606 and as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Tehsil Gurdaspur.

¶23

On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant has taken the plea that he is exclusive owner of the said tubewell and that the said killa number fell to his share.

¶24

On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by present appellant-defendant was dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur.

¶25

Admitted facts are that both the parties are real brothers. They are having one another brother, who resides in Spain. It has also been proved from the revenue record that the land in dispute including disputed killa No.16, in which disputed tubewell is situated, was joint of the parties. Plea has been taken by present appellant that there was an oral partition and that the appellant is cultivating the land of his share.

¶26

However, it has been rightly held by learned Courts below that present appellant has admitted in the written statement itself that killa No.16 is jointly owned by him and his brothers. Hence, presumption is that when tubewell was installed in joint land in Killa No.16, which jointly owned by all the brothers, the tubewell is also owned by all the brothers jointly. Heavy onus lays upon the present appellant-defendant to prove that the tubewell is exclusively owned by him, which he has failed to prove.

¶27

RSA No.4618 of 2010(O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

Learned Courts below have only restrained present appellant-defendant from obstructing use of the tubewell for irrigating the land of respondentplaintiff.

¶30

Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶31

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶32

8.11.2011 meenu

Gurmej Singh v. Sucha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmej Singh v. Sucha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs Bank of India and Ors.

Bachan Kaur Vs Prabh Simran Singh Gill and Ors.

Satbir and Ors. Vs Dano and Ors.

Sukhmander Singh Vs Virpal Kaur &Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs M/S Aar Kay Construction Company

Asini @ Asii Vs Rajender Singh and Others