The regular second appeal was dismissed. The court held that suits for declaration of ownership by adverse possession are not maintainable based on Supreme Court judgment. Both parties are co-sharers, and the lower courts rightly directed defendants to seek possession by partition.
The 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1811-2012(O&M) Date of Order:30.11.2018
Om Parkash and others
..Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate, for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
Plaintiffs-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, dismissing a suit for declaration that they have become owners by way of adverse possession.
However, both the courts granted decree of permanent injunction. Learned trial court granted decree for permanent injunction against forcible dispossession, which was not challenged by the defendants in appeal.
Both the parties have held to be co-sharers and therefore, the learned first appellate court has rightly directed the defendants to seek possession by way of partition.
As regards declaration on the basis of adverse possession, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such suit is not maintainable. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.06 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA-1811-2012(O&M)
and another, 2013 (12) JT SC 580 . This judgment has further been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Bhanwar and others vs. Ajaib Singh (deceased) through his LR, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 604.
In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
November 30, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
NARESH KUMAR 2018.12.06 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against a declaration of ownership by adverse possession and a decree of permanent injunction should be allowed.
Whether a suit for declaration of ownership by way of adverse possession is maintainable under Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and anotherApplied¶15
Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, 2013 (12) JT SC 580 · Who else cites this
Vijay Bhanwar and others vs. Ajaib Singh (deceased) through his LRFollowed¶19
Vijay Bhanwar and others vs. Ajaib Singh (deceased) through his LR, 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 604
Om Parkash and others
Ashok Kumar and others
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
