Single judge dismissed an appeal against a decree declaring the appellant as owner of 12/14th share in land. Court held no question of law arose as finding of fact regarding plaintiff's failure to admit defendant's claim was concurrent. Appeal 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.
vinod kumar 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.1582 of 2011 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1582 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:14.05.2014
Gamdoor Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Jagjit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of 12/14th share in the land measuring 190 kanal 13 marlas, situated in the area of Jhunir and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.619 dated 24.07.1990 is illegal and mutation no.7903 sanctioned on the basis of the said decree is also liable to be set aside.
The case of the plaintiff was that he did not appear in the suit no.619 and also did not file any written statement. However, it has been recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had appeared in the Court, filed written statement and admitted the claim of the defendants, therefore, he has been disbelieved while dismissing the suit.
Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the Courts
RSA No.1582 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ]
vinod kumar 2014.05.26 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
below have committed a patent error of law while reading the evidence, but at the same time he has failed to point out as to how the evidence brought has been misread by the Courts below as his whole case is that he has not suffered the decree in Civil Suit No.619 which has been found to be against the record because the plaintiff himself had appeared in the suit and has filed his written statement admitting the claim of the defendants/plaintiff therein.
Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below as there is no question of law involved in this appeal.
Dismissed.
May 14, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
Gamdoor Singh
Jagjit Singh
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
