The High Court dismissed the revision appeal. The court held that revenue records indicated the plaintiff as a co-sharer, failing to establish sole ownership required for injunction. No illegality or perversity was found in the lower courts' judgment.
The appeal was dismissed with no finding of illegality or perversity in the impugned decisions.
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.1530 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1530 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:27.11.2018
Madan Lal s/o Mulakh Raj ... Appellant
Vs.
Madan Lal s/o Hari Chand
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming the injunction before the trial Court as well as in appeal at the appellate stage. The injunction was sought qua physical possession of the suit property and with regard to mutation bearing no.782.
The defendant opposed the suit by raising objection of concealment. The possession and ownership of the plaintiff was also denied.
The plaintiff in support of the averments brought on record jamabandi for the year 2004-05 as Ex.P1 and khasra girdawari as Ex.P4 to establish the possession.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality and perversity in not granting the injunction. The ownership and possession of the suit property had been established through revenue record.
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.1530 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
A person, who has been found in possession in the absence of ownership, can protect the same, if in long and settled possession.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, the revenue record i.e. mutation bearing no.782 established the transfer of 1/36 share total measuring 4 marlas out of the suit khasra number in favour of the plaintiff, who has been shown as co-sharer. Even the Housing Board Authority was not impleaded as party. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus by leading evidence in tandem with the pleadings.
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.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| November 27, 2018 | |
| savita | |
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts committed illegality or perversity in dismissing the appeal regarding injunction on possession.
Whether a substantial question of law arises from the appreciation of evidence in the contested property suit.
Madan Lal s/o Mulakh Raj
Madan Lal s/o Hari Chand
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
