Zile Singh And Others vs Balbir Singh on 31 August, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Zile Singh And Others vs Balbir Singh on 31 August, 2009

Bench: Ajay Tewari

R.S.A No. 3378 of 2004                                      ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                        R.S.A No. 3378 of 2004
                                        Date of decision : August 31, 2009



Zile Singh and others,
                                              ...... Appellant (s)

                            v.


Balbir Singh                                                ...... Respondent(s)

                                 ***

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

                                 ***

Present :      Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
               for Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate
               for the appellants.

               Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate
               for the respondent.

                                 ***

1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
     judgment ?
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
                                ***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in his possession over three marla of land.

The following questions have been proposed :-

" i) Whether the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are totally contrary to the records ?


                     ii)    Whether the respondent can file a suit for
 R.S.A No. 3378 of 2004                                    ::2::

permanent injunction when he has been allotted a plot in Khasra No.78/2 instead of Khasra No.133/1/14 ?

iii) Whether the respondent can occupy both the plots i.e in Khasra No.78/2 and in Khasra No.133/1/14, 3 marlas each ?"

It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Both the Courts have found that the respondent is owner in possession of the land in dispute. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the findings of the Courts below as also the evidence but has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse and, thus, liable for interference under Section 100 of the C.P.C.

Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                          ( AJAY TEWARI             )
August    31, 2009.                            JUDGE
`kk'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court