Dismissed

Sata Nand v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2013RSA/2324/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against an appellate order modifying a mandatory injunction decree. The High Court observed that the appellant admitted the passage width was 11 feet but failed to explain how the otherwise legal appellate finding was erroneous, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as the appellant admitted the 11 feet width without explaining the error in the impugned judgment.

Sata Nand Vs Ram Narain and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RSA No.2324 of 1985

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2324 of 1985 Date of decision: 01.07.2013

¶5

Sata Nand

¶6

......Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ram Narain & ors. ......Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶13

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading that he is owner in possession of the suit land which was used for tethering his cattle and other purposes and the defendants have got no right to interfere in the use of the suit land who were trying to obstruct the rights of the plaintiff-appellant.

¶14

The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents taking the defence that in between the land of the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents, there was 11 feet wide passage and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on projection of a wrong site plan.

¶15

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant holding that there was a passage on which the defendants have raised construction and thus, a mandatory injunction was issued against the respondents to remove the constructed houses from the passage.

¶16

On an appeal, filed by the respondent-Ram Narain, the Lower

¶17

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

¶19

RSA No.2324 of 1985

¶20

Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court holding that the width of the passage was 11 feet and to that extent, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified in the following terms:

¶21

“In the result the appeal is partly allowed and accepted to this extent that the decree dated 8.8.1983 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul is modified to this extent that the width of the passage in dispute would always be considered as 11 feet and not 20 feet and that the site plan Ex.D1 would form part of the decree so as to determine the boundaries of the passage.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are liable to be reversed as the same are result of misreading of the evidence and therefore, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:

¶23

“Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the same is the result of misinterpretation and misreading of the evidence on record?”

¶24

However, it may be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the findings of the Lower Appellate Court to the extent that width of the passage in dispute is 11 feet but according to him, the defendant-respondents has made an admission by way of evidence of DW-1 that construction has been raised on the land in dispute and thus, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Once the appellant is admitting the factum of the width of passage as 11 feet, no fault can be found with the findings of the Lower Appellate Court according

¶25

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

¶27

RSA No.2324 of 1985

¶28

to which the passage in dispute is 11 feet. The counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the impugned judgment is erroneous.

¶29

In this view of the matter, the question of law, as raised, does

¶30

not arise as there is no misreading of evidence.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

July 01, 2013 ps

¶33

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶34

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sata Nand v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sata Nand v. Ram Narain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Krishen Goel Vs Vijay Bhardwaj and Anr.

Gurmukh Singh Benipal Vs Harish Anand and Another

Dalbir Singh Vs Rajat Aggarwal

Jagdish Vs Balwan

Gian Chand Vs Siri Ram etc.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana