The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The court held that a stray entry in the revenue record without formal correction procedures was insufficient to prove possession. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
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.
RSA No.1950 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1950 of 2011
Date of Decision: February 06, 2012
Paramdeep Singh and another
.......Appellants
Versus
Suba Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.JS Ghuman, Advocate for the appellants.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
RSA No.1950 of 2011
2
in khewat No.116 out of the suit land. Further, land measuring 16 kanals comprised in khewat No.118 was possessed by defendants No.1,2 and 4 as tenants of Malkiat Singh son of Bawa Singh. As such, it was pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the entire suit land.
“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for in the heading of the plaint? OPP”
the plaintiff-appellants filed a civil appeal before the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur. The present second appeal before this Court is directed against the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2010 passed by the District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal has been dismissed.
under Malkiat Singh who is shown to be owner as per copy of the jamabandi for the year 2002-03, Exhibit P2.
RSA No.1950 of 2011
3
plaintiff-appellant No.1 was studying in USA. Prior to proceeding abroad, both had been residing at Mohali and were students of S.D.College, Chandigarh. Further, deposition of the plaintiff-appellant Karandeep Singh himself was to the effect that their father Gurdial Singh as also other family members had been residing together at Mohali for the last 8-9 years. PW1 could not testify as to the point of time when the alleged possession of the suit land had been taken from the defendant-respondents.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) FEBRUARY 06, 2012 JUDGE SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a stray entry in khasra girdawari is sufficient to prove possession without following revenue record correction procedures.
Whether there is a substantial question of law requiring consideration in the second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paramdeep Singh
Suba Singh
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
