Dismissed

Raj Kumari v. Kamla Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Nov 2018RSA/1830/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, Justice Amit Rawal dismissed the appellant-challenger's appeal, upholding a decree that affirmed her possession of suit land. The court noted that although injunctions do not confer title, the defendant's candid admission of possession negated grounds for interference, finding no substantial question of law to be determined.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal stands dismissed as there is no ground for interference with the lower courts' findings.

Raj Kumari Vs Kamla Devi — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.1830 of 2016 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1830 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.11.2018

Raj Kumari

...Appellant

Kamla Devi ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶13

The appellant-defendant has not been successful in defending the suit for injunction from forcible interference and dispossession, except in due course of law.

¶14

The plaintiff alleged to be in possession of the suit land on the basis of agreement to sell dated 02.05.2011 executed by Sandhya Rani and Anita Kumari.

¶15

The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of admission of the defendant and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶16

It is strange that despite the aforementioned admission, defendant assailed judgment and decree of the trial Court before the lower Appellate Court and having not been successful, approached this Hon'ble Court. The innocuous decree of injunction from forcible dispossession and interference even in the absence of expression “due course of law” would not make any difference, as once the defendant had set up a title, which was not subject matter of issue in the suit for injunction, he shall be at liberty to seek possession in accordance with law, particularly, when possession of the plaintiff over the suit

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA No.1830 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶19

property was candidly admitted by the defendant.

¶20

As an upshot of my finding, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal stands dismissed.

¶21

	(AM	IT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 21,	2018
Pankaj*
	Whether Reasoned/Speaking	Yes
	Whether Reportable	No

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Kumari v. Kamla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. Kamla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Singh Vs Darbara Singh and Ors.

Harnek Singh Vs Hamir Singh

Manju Jain Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Master Bhatti & Sons Vs Daljit Singh

Rupinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh and Ors.

Ajit Singh Thru Lrs. Kulwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Satnam Singh