Dismissed

Sewa Singh v. Madan Lal & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2018RSA/5759/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction regarding a kacha street. The high court allowed the appeal to fail, holding that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving his title under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act by producing a demarcation report or sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without any specific relief granted to any party.

Sewa Singh Vs Madan Lal & Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.5759 of 2015 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.5759 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:09.05.2018

Sewa Singh

... Appellant

Vs.

Madan Lal and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶14

The appellant-plaintiff No.1 is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly making encroachment on common public kacha street which is 15 ft. wide and 52'6” long situated in Lal Singh, Nagar, Bathinda meant for common purposes and for outgress and ingress to the house of plaintiff, had been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

¶15

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff No.1 submits that the suit was filed on the premise that vide sale deeds dated 15.11.1996 and 10.09.1999, the plaintiffs purchased the property in Street No.7, Lal Singh Nagar, Naruana Road, Bathinda shown in yellow colour in site plan which was 15' wide and 52.6” long meant for outgress and ingress

¶16

Savita 2018.05.15 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.5759 of 2015 (O&M) {2}

¶18

of the plaintiffs. The defendant was claiming that he was owner of some plot in that locality and wanted to encroach the kacha passage in dispute, therefore, necessity arose to file the suit.

¶19

The defendant contested the suit by claiming the ownership of the property in dispute since 1983. It was alleged that plaintiffs forcibly and illegally opened the doors and windows toward the said plot of defendant and plaintiffs wanted to grab the property of defendant.

¶20

The trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that defendant was owner of the suit property on the basis of documentary evidence. However, no sale deed had been proved on record vis-a-vis ownership. The site plan has also been proved on record.

¶21

As per office report, respondents have been served. However, there is no representation on their behalf.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr.Soni, for, it was incumbent upon appellant to produce on record demarcation report to establish whether the area in possession of appellant commensurated with the sale deed. On the contrary, the defendants had proved on record jamabandi Ex.D1 to show the ownership. The onus was upon the appellant to prove the same. In the absence of discharge of onus as per the provisions of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court had no occasion to decline the relief.

¶23

The arguments of Mr. Soni, have not been able to bring the case within the real of illegality and perversity or to form the different

¶24

Savita 2018.05.15 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.5759 of 2015 (O&M)

¶26

{3}

¶27

opinion than the one arrived at by the Courts below.

¶28

No other argument has been raised.

¶29

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶30

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 09, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶31

Savita 2018.05.15 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sewa Singh v. Madan Lal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewa Singh v. Madan Lal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhpreet Singh Vs Dev Parkash

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs Mangal Ram

Amrit Pal Singh Cheema Thro Lrs Rajinder Kaur Cheema & Ors. Vs Mohini Rajput & Ors.

State of Punjab and Another Vs Balwinder Kaur

Karamjit Kaur Vs Sukhchain Singh

Tilak Raj Vs Sukhdev Singh & Anr.