In an appeal against a non-suit, the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs/culpa's suit for recovery of possession. The court upheld the lower courts' rejection of oral evidence and documents, finding the appellants failed to prove title or establish long possession of the property.
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.3173 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3173 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: August 28, 2012
BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
BHAGAT SINGH & ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.
M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL)
RSA No.3173 of 2010
-2-
RSA No.3173 of 2010
-3-
living abroad. Of course, the property is situate in the abadi deh of village Gobindpur. Whoever occupies the portion in abadi deh and puts up construction may become the owner of the property. But to establish long possession having constructed a house in disputed land, nothing has been produced by the plaintiffs.
RSA No.3173 of 2010
-4-
August 28, 2012 Gulati
( M.JEYAPAUL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-suited plaintiffs, who failed to establish title or long possession in a suit for recovery of possession arising from a village house dispute, are entitled to restore the suit via appe
Whether the lower courts correctly rejected oral evidence and documents (including late chulha tax receipts) as insufficient to prove ownership and possession.
Baldev Singh & Others
Bhagat Singh & Another
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
