This is an oral order where the appellant was absent from the hearing. The High Court dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution without going on merits of the property dispute.
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.
RSA No.2409 of 1990(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2409 of 1990(O&M) Date of decision: 03.04.2014
Mehar Singh & ors.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Satnam Singh
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: None.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 6.6.1990 whereby while accepting the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant the judgement and decree of the trial Court dated 12.8.1988 has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for permanent injunction restraining the defendantrespondent from interfering in their possession forcibly/illegally except in due course of law, has been dismissed.
As per the averments made, Kirpal Singh, father of the appellants, was in possession of the land in dispute as mortgagee for the last more than 30 years and after his death, the appellants being his legal heirs came into possession of the suit land. One Ram Lok, who was owner of the suit land, has sold the property in dispute to them and as such, they were in possession of the land as owners whereas the defendant/respondent has got no concern with the suit land, who is threatening to dispossess them and thus ,necessity arose to file the suit.
Saini Pushpinder 2014.04.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2409 of 1990(O&M)
2
The suit was contested by the respondent denying that Kirpal Singh was in possession over the suit land being mortgagee for the last 30 years. It was denied that the appellants were the only legal heirs of Kirpal Singh and were in possession of the suit land. It was submitted that Malkiat Dass was owner of half share out of the land in dispute and he sold his share vide sale deed dated 10.6.1986 and as such, the defendantrespondent was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and in possession of the land in dispute. Since the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, they were not entitled to as prayed.
The parties went to the trial on the following issues:
“i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
ii) Relief.”
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs being sons of Kirpal Singh, mortgagee, were deemed to be in possession over the suit land and thus, the defendant was restrained from forcibly dispossessing them from the suit land except in due course of law.
The defendant-respondent filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was accepted vide judgement and decree dated 6.6.1990.
While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court found that the land in dispute was not under mortgage and thus, there was no question of possession of the mortgagee and thus, possession of the plaintiff-appellants was not proved on the land in dispute and they were not entitled to the injunction, as prayed.
Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal. No one is present on behalf of the appellants.
Saini Pushpinder 2014.04.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2409 of 1990(O&M)
3
I have perused the impugned judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court.
The findings so recorded in favour of the defendantrespondent is on the basis of evidence on record. The question of possession is a question of fact.
Since no one is present , it seems that the appellants have lost interest in the instant litigation.
Dismissed for non-prosecution.
Copy of this order be sent to the appellants through registered
post.
April 03, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2014.04.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Mehar Singh
Satnam Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
