Special civil revision regarding a suit for injunction over agricultural land between grand-father and grand-son. High Court dismissed the revision as no revenue entry proving the appellant's possession was produced.
Revision petition 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.
CR 3597/2013(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 3597/2013(O&M) Date of decision:22/08/2013
Harpal Singh
.............Petitioner
v.
Ajaib Singh and another
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Jagjit Gill,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
The dispute is between plaintiff-grand father and defendant-grand son. Plaintiff-Ajaib Singh alongwith his brother Gurcharan Singh filed a suit for injunction against his grand sondefendant Harpal Singh seeking to restrain him from interfering in their peaceful possession over the agricultural land qua their undivided share alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned trial court vide order dated 8.8.2012 by relying on the entries in the revenue record, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide
order dated 21.3.2013. Hence the present revision.
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.22 18:31 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
CR 3597/2013(O&M)
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute is between family members and plaintiff-grand father and his brother alongwith other co-sharers are recorded as owners in possession but factually it is the defendant-appellant who is cultivating portion of the suit land belonging to his share based on an oral family settlement.
After hearing the learned counsel, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the courts below since the defendant-appellant has failed to produce any revenue entry showing his possession. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
22.08.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.22 18:31 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be allowed given the lack of revenue entries showing the appellant's possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harpal Singh
Ajaib Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
