This regular second appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The appellant sought recovery regarding possession and damages, challenging the lower Appellate Court's decision on mesne profits. The tribunal found no infirmity in the lower court's equitable findings.
The second appeal was 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.
RSA No.5039 of 2013 O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5039 of 2013 O&M) Date of decision: 12.01.2015
Deepanshu Pushdeep Welfare Trust Rewari
... Appellant
Vs.
Fisheries Farm, Government Fisheries Seed Farm and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Saravjit Singh Khurana, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
This regular second appeal is directed at the instance of plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the defendants-respondents has been partly allowed and the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.
The claim of the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court was for recovery of 3,65,000/- as well as for possession of the property in dispute. It is a matter of record that possession of the property was handed over by the defendants-respondents to the plaintiff-appellant in August, 2011. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant by granting damages @ 1000/- per day along
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.5039 of 2013 O&M)
2
with interest @ 6% per annum. However, the lower Appellate Court in appeal filed by the defendants-respondents set aside the said findings and granted the mesne profits to the plaintiff-appellant against the rent @ 3200/- per month to 5,000/- per month.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that both the Courts below have not referred Ex.PW6/3, lease agreement dated 15.03.2008 wherein premises located adjacent to the property in dispute were rented out @ 20,000/- per month. Concededly, the lease deed had been entered into by Ajay Aggarwal trustee of the Trust who also owns property adjacent to the property in dispute. No witness of the said lease deed had been examined by the defendant-respondent to prove that the rent of the demised property in the vicinity was 20,000/-.
The lower Appellate Court has also increased the rent from 3200/- per month to 5,000/-per month in respect of the period for which the defendants-respondents remained in unauthorized possession.
No fault can be found with the finding which is based on the equity. No miscarriage of justice has been caused to the plaintiffappellant.
I do not find infirmity, illegality much less perversity with the finding of the lower Appellate Court.
No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of this appeal.
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.5039 of 2013 O&M)
3
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 12, 2015 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.14 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed by the appellant reveals any infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the findings regarding mesne profits by the lower Appellate Court.
Deepanshu Pushdeep Welfare Trust Rewari
Fisheries Farm
Government Fisheries Seed Farm
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
