Dismissed

Siri Ram v. Nand Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2018RSA/4335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence proving ownership of the disputed property. Reliance on a compromise document and Khasra Pamaish was insufficient to overturn the concurrent findings of fact below.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; no interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Siri Ram Vs Nand Ram and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No. 4335 of 2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 4335 of 2015 Date of decision : 15.03.2018

Siri Ram

...Appellant

versus

Nand Ram and ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J.

¶14

This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant (herein after to be referred as 'the appellant') has been dismissed.

¶15

The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove on record that he is owner in possession of the disputed property marked with letters ABCD in the site plan. No documentary evidence has been filed to prove the ownership. The appellant was only relying upon the compromise dated 12.12.1998 which was alleged to be executed in the police station. However, a bare perusal of the compromise shows that there was dispute with respect to wall in between the parties and both parties agreed to demarcate the place. After demarcation, both the parties will settle their claim. A local commissioner was appointed by the orders of the Court in case filed earlier who stated that the suit property is a part and parcel of

¶16

Gaurav Arora 2018.03.27 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No. 4335 of 2015

¶18

-2-

¶19

Ahata No. 133and Ghar No. 156. the appellant has not stated that this demarcation has not taken place in his presence. Once no documentary evidence was led by the appellant, he cannot rely upon cop of Khasra Pamaish wherein the respondents were not recorded as the owner of the property.

¶20

Accordingly, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both

¶21

the Courts below does not require any interference by this Court.

¶22

No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this

¶23

Court.

¶24

The appeal is dismissed.

¶25

15.03.2018 G Arora

¶26

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2018.03.27 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Siri Ram v. Nand Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siri Ram v. Nand Ram and Ors.

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

Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh & Ors.

Faiman Begum Vs Islam

Gopi Krishan and Ors. Vs Shobha Devi and Ors.

Renu & Ors. Vs Bijender & Ors.

Shikha and Anr. Vs Vikas Yadav & Ors.

Hari Krishan @ Kuka Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.