Dismissed

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Chanchal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2013RSA/2881/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal where appellant sought mandatory injunction to close répondents' ventilators. Appellant failed to prove facts on record, while respondents proved prior possession of adjoining properties with such structures existing since 1988. Court dismissed appeal and criticized factual reargument.

What did the court decide?

Mandatory injunction sought by appellants to close ventilators of respondents dismissed.

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs Chanchal Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2013.09.23 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

#1#

¶3

RSA No.2881 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶5

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

RSA No.2881 of 2010 (O&M)

¶7

Date of decision: 22.08.2013

¶8

Joginder Singh and Anr.

¶9

….Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Chanchal Singh and Ors.

¶12

….Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶14

Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.

¶15

Jaswant Singh, J

¶16

C.M.No.8635-C of 2010

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

RSA No.2881 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

Unsuccessful plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby their suit for mandatory injunction has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008 and the findings affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2009.

¶20

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a civil suit praying for mandatory injunction and directing the defendants-respondents to close down their ventilators, parnalas and small outlets as shown in the site plan and mentioned in the plaint, which were open towards the property of the

¶21

#2#

¶22

RSA No.2881 of 2010 (O&M)

¶23

plaintiffs-appellants bearing Khasra No.922.

¶24

Counsel for the appellants heard and the paper book perused carefully with his able assistance.

¶25

There is no dispute that the plaintiff-appellant are in possession of a piece of land as tenant owned by Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter to be referred as “Board”) in a part of Khasra No.922 since 1990 (Ex.PW5/1) and running their furniture work therein.

¶26

On the other hand, the defendants-respondents have successfully proved their case, which has also been accepted by both the leaned courts below that that they are in possession as tenant in respect of property falling in Khasra No.909 and 910 as the same was allotted to them by the Board in the year 1988 (Ex.DA).

¶27

The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that about 4 years back, the respondents had illegally and unauthorisedly opened the apertures towards their Khasra No.922 without their consent or the permission of the Board.

¶28

It has come on record that prior to the defendants-respondents, one Jodh Raj was in possession of Khasra No.909 as a tenant of the Board and all these parnalas and ventilators were existing since then and there is no evidence on record to prove that the defendants-respondents have opened or installed any parnala or ventilator in the past 4 years as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant.

¶29

It is also an admitted position that defendants-respondents are in possession of Khasra Nos.909 & 910 since 1988 whereas the plaintiffappellant came into possession of Khasra No.922 in the year 1990 i.e later in time. The existence or non-existence of parnala, ventilator and apertures

¶30

#3#

¶31

RSA No.2881 of 2010 (O&M)

¶32

is purely a question of fact, which can be proved only by way of an admissible evidence in a court of law, which the plaintiffs-appellants have miserably failed and that has rightly been observed by both the courts below and this court also is in fully agreement of the same.

¶33

Now, before this Court, the plaintiff-appellant is trying to reargue only the factual aspects, which is not permissible in view of Section 100 CPC as the same is limited to a substantial question of law, which is not made out in the present case.

¶34

Dismissed. August 22, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Chanchal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Chanchal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boor Singh Lalia Vs Sandesh Kaur

Pritpal Singh Vs Baljit Kaur

Rajinder Kaur Vs Balwinder Kaur

Harpal Singh Vs Ajaib Singh and Anr.

Satinder Rawat & Ors. Vs Pushpinder Singh Cheema

Mateshwar Dayal Vs Ram Phal