This regular second appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the first appellate court's finding that the plaintiff could not establish title to the suit property or prove ancestry, as determined in a prior partition suit.
The regular second appeal is 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.2150 of 2014 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2150 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order: 01.06.2018
Raghubir Saran
..Appellant
Versus
Kailash Chand Goyal and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate, for respondents no.1 and 1A.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court.
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming that he along with other descendants of Roop Ram are owners in possession of Ghar No.436 along with the plot depicted by letters ABCD as shown in the site plan and bounded by the property as described in the plaint.
Defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has wrongly claimed that the suit property bears Ghar No.436.
Learned first appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence available on the file, have found that the plaintiff previously filed a suit for partition which was dismissed on 09.06.2011, Ex.DA.
Naresh Kumar 2018.06.26 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.2150 of 2014 (O&M)
In the aforesaid suit, the court found that the plaintiff and the defendants were not able to establish their title qua the suit property and, therefore, they were not entitled to partition. Tula Ram, the plaintiffappellant could not prove that Roop Ram was ancestor of the parties.
It is not disputed before this Court that the aforesaid judgment and decree has become final.
In view of the aforesaid finding, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been correctly dismissed by the learned first appellate court.
Learned counsel for the appellant made serious attempt to persuade this court to take a different view, however, learned counsel could not dispute about correctness of the findings which have been referred to in the earlier part of the judgment and the finding arrived at by the first appellate court in paragraph 14 of the judgment.
In view thereof, there is no scope for interference with the findings arrived at by the learned first appellate court.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
June, 01, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Naresh Kumar 2018.06.26 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the regular second appeal against the first appellate court's judgment dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction should be allowed.
Raghubir Saran
Kailash Chand Goyal
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
