Dismissed

Rohini Pathania v. Kewal Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2018RSA/1452/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In RSA No.1452 of 2016, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the appeal filed by Rohini Pathania against a civil decree. The court held that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to establish exclusive possession of the disputed property. Citing precedents, the judge noted that co-sharers must seek partition as the remedy rather than claiming injunction, holding the appeal a

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Rohini Pathania Vs Kewal Singh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1452 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1452 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:19.11.2018

Rohini Pathania

... Appellant

Vs.

Kewal Singh and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M.No.4020-C of 2016

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands allowed.

¶15

RSA No.1452 of 2016 (O&M)

¶16

The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming the injunction against the respondent-defendants in respect of the plot bearing khewat no.102, khatoni no.285, khasra no.597/1 total area measuring 14 marlas.

¶17

Mr. R.S.Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that plaintiff has been able to establish the exclusive possession as the status of defendants in the suit property is of cosharers and in view of the ratio decidendi culled by Full Bench of this Court

¶18

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.11.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

RSA No.1452 of 2016 (O&M)

¶20

{2}

¶21

in Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204 and reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh 2000 (3)

¶22

RCR Civil 70, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit.

¶23

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish the exclusive possession. Remedy, in such circumstances, amongst the co-sharers is to seek partition.

¶24

As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees under challenge which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

¶25

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶26

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 19, 2018
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶27

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.11.26 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Rohini Pathania v. Kewal Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini Pathania v. Kewal Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh Vs Kashmir Singh

Chameli Devi Deceased Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Sourav Singla

Vishal Thakur Vs Ruchi Thakur

Jeo Vs Kartar Singh & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Umesh Gupta and Ors.

M/S Amarpal Singh and Company Vs Gurdeep Singh