Appeal against dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction regarding disputed land. Court affirmed lower courts' finding of fact on compromise and surrender of possession, allowing no merit in the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; suit for permanent injunction remains 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 2014.05.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.49 of 1988 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.49 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:14.05.2014
Harchand Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Ujjagar Singh and other
...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. P.S.Punia, Advocate, for the respondents. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J .
The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below in a suit filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute measuring 11 bighas 0 biswa. The plaintiff has claimed that he is in possession over of the suit property for the last more than 40 years as a tenant.
On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the land was owned by respondent no.4, who sold it to defendant no.3 and the plaintiff entered into a compromise with him and surrendered the possession in his favour.
While appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below
vinod kumar 2014.05.20 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.49 of 1988 (O&M) [ 2 ]
recorded a concurrent finding of fact with regard to the compromise and the possession having been surrendered by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.3.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had separately challenged the compromise, relied upon by defendant no.3 and has lost before the Courts below.
The factum of compromise having been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 and surrender of possession thereafter has been established, as a result thereof, the suit for permanent injunction has rightly been dismissed by the Courts below.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much-less substantial is involved therein.
Dismissed.
May 14, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction merits allowance given the proven compromise and surrender of possession.
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction when the plaintiff surrendered possession via compromise.
Harchand Singh
Ujjagar Singh
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
