Second appeal against possession decree. The court clarified the decree relates only to Khasra No.1783. No substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed.
The second appeal was dismissed on merits with no substantial question of law arising.
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.2577 of 2014 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2577 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.12.2014
Smt. Kamlesh Rani
... Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Parsin Kaur
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
At the instance of defendant-appellant, this regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of old house measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas bearing khasra No.1783 has been decreed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendantappellant submits that defendant-appellant is the owner of house bearing khasra No.1784(0-3) on the basis of sale deed dated 25.06.2004 which has been executed by Hazura Singh, erstwhile owner of the property. He further submits that the findings on issue No.3 has been rendered in favour of the defendant-appellant and the defendant-appellant has been found owner of land measuring 0 kanals 3 marlas bearing khasra No.1784 on the basis of sale deed
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2577 of 2014 (O&M)
2
dated 25.06.2004. He also submits that demarcation report produced by the plaintiff-respondent had been rejected by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court. However, there is passing reference to the demarcation report in the order of the lower Appellate Court.
I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts
below.
The findings of both the Courts below are based on finding of fact and law. Decree has been passed in respect of khasra No.1783 measuring 3 marlas and not in respect of khasra No.1784 measuring 3 marlas which is found to be owned and in possession of the defendant-appellant. Decree is confined to khasra No. 1783 measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas only.
No substantial question of law arises for determination of
this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Since the appeal is dismissed on merits, therefore, the applications do not survive in the present appeal.
It is made clear that decree is confined to khasra No.1783 (0-3) as reflected in jamabandi Ex.P2.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
December 18, 2014 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.23 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should be allowed when the decree pertains only to Khasra No.1783 and not the property claimed by the appellant.
Smt. Kamlesh Rani
Smt. Parsin Kaur
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
