Plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction over suit property, alternatively possession, was dismissed by trial court and first appellate court on finding parties were co-sharers with partition as efficacious remedy. The High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the regular second appeal.
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
111
RSA-4604-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.:01.10.2024
Rohini Pathania
Appellant
Vs.
Parveen Singh
Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Plain�ff has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent finding of the Court below, inasmuch as suit filed by her seeking a decree for mandatory injunc�on in respect of suit property against defendant (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.08.2016 and the appeal filed by the plain�ff- appellant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 03.08.2018.
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-4604-2019 (O&M)
-2-
interfering in his possession or to dispossess him forcible from the suit property.
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-4604-2019 (O&M)
-3-
possession of the defendant in the suit property. Suit of plain�ff for permanent injunc�on had already been dismissed vide Ex.D4.The Courts below have found the par�es to be co-sharer and as such, the efficacious remedy for the plain�ff was to seek a decree for par��on.
No merits. Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
October 01, 2024
Nee�ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.10.03 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction for exclusive possession of the suit property despite concurrent findings that the parties were co-sharers.
Rohini Pathania
Parveen Singh
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
