In a second appeal regarding a suit for possession and injunction dismissed below due to lack of title evidence and res judicata, the High Court held the appeal is barred. The court found no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC to warrant interfering with the final decrees. The appeal was 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.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.11.11 10:24I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.1885 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1885 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2013
Bhagat Ram
....Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal and Ors.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J
Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal against the
concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby his suit for possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karnal and the findings affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 2.3.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Karnal.
Plaintiff filed suit for possession and mandatory injunction regarding the suit property, which is claimed to be a part of residential house and used by the plaintiff for tethering his cattles. It is alleged that the defendants-respondents on 2.2.2002, demolished the khor etc and forcibly occupied the same.
On the other hand, defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants by inter alia alleging that the suit property has
#2#
RSA No.1885 of 2012 (O&M)
been obtained by them in an exchange from one Nathu Ram about 1516 years ago and on earlier occasion also, the suit of the plaintiffappellant for permanent injunction has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and thus, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
Learned trial Court while deciding issue Nos.1,2 & 4 came to the conclusion in para 11 of its judgment that the plaintiff has not been able to place on record any evidence for establishing his title. Learned trial Court further came to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is barred on the principle of resjudicata also as the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the same was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004 (Ex.D.1) thereby dismissing the suit. Learned First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book carefully with his able assistance.
Admittedly, on an earlier occasion also, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the findings affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004.
It is not in dispute that in the earlier suit, there was a specific issue regarding ownership and possession and a firm finding has been recorded against the plaintiff-appellant by both the courts below after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the
RSA No.1885 of 2012 (O&M) #3#
parties. It is also not in dispute that the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004 has already become final and thus, the suit of the plaintiffappellant has rightly been dismissed by both the learned courts below and the plaintiff cannot wriggle out of the same by instituting a fresh suit.
No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for adjudication under Section 100 CPC.
Dismissed. August 12, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit appeal is maintainable given the existence of binding res judicata from prior proceedings.
Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC to overturn the lower courts' findings on title and possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagat Ram
Mohan Lal
JASWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
