This second appeal concerning a suit for property injunction was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that appellants failed to establish any right or possession. The court ruled that prior adjudications and mutation entries were conclusive, and the appellants' arguments were grossly unfair. (K. KANNAN, J.)
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.
-1-
RSA No.1177 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1177 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.11.09.2015
Des Raj and another
.......Appellants
Versus
Kulbhushan and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.1177 of 2012 (O&M)
defendants as early as in the year 1963-64 and their names entered in the jamabandi. In the defence, the defendants referred to several transactions between the same parties and there had been litigations in Court. There was one suit filed by the defendants against the Municipal Corporation that it attempted to interfere with the rights of ownership and possession and that case was brought upto the High Court in RSA No.1508 of 1978. The defendants' title to the property was reported to have been upheld. It was also the contention of the defendants for which a document had been filed in Court as Ex.P6 that the plaintiffs had formed themselves into members of the Society and a suit had been instituted for injunction in the name of Dr. Amedkar Society against the defendants and the suit was dismissed on 27.11.2001. That decision had become final. There was yet another suit, which the defendants had claimed, was filed against some of the plaintiffs and that suit was decreed on 22.07.1989. All these references to suit and the documents have been referred by the trial Court and it found that the plaintiffs who had claimed themselves to be in possession had not established any right or possession and the rights of parties already stood decided in earlier decisions. The decision was affirmed in the appeal.
-3-
RSA No.1177 of 2012 (O&M)
constitute documents of title and they could only be evidence of title to the property. In this case, it does not merely stop with mutation entries, there have been litigations between the parties and there have been adjudication affirmed the right in the property to the defendants. I asked the counsel about the reference to several judgments already said to have been brought about between the parties and the outcome of the decisions which are brought against the plaintiffs and how it is possible for the plaintiff to lay claim to the property in spite of such decisions. The counsel will have no answer and referred to some photographs filed at the trial Court and reiterate the argument which was already made that the defendants had not produced any document of title. The matter has stood decided on a good consideration of all the relevant facts and I find that the present argument made without reference to any of the previous proceedings is grossly unfair.
dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 11, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiffs can claim property rights despite adverse adjudications and lack of documented title deeds.
Whether the second appeal against the dismissed suit on injunction warrants interference.
Validity of appellants' claim considering mutation entries and prior litigation outcomes.
Des Raj
Kulbhushan
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
