Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Mangal Singh vs Tek Ram And Ors. on 19 May, 1975
(6) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant to impugn the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The photostat copy of the Panchayatnama is filed and is marked 'A', which forms part of the record of the case. The learned Judge referred to the interpretation put by the High Court on the document, as has been referred to in the above said paragraphs and accepted such interpretation. The learned Counsel has not placed any cogent material before me in the present second appeal to take a contrary view. The said Panchayatnama was admittedly signed by the appellant wherein he accepted that he had built the hut in question , the land belonging to the respondents. The possession of the appellant, accordingly, was correctly held to be permissive and the respondents were held to be owners of the land and the claim of damages was rightly upheld in view of the Panchayatnama. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not denied the existence of this document. However, it is contended that the same is not proved in accordance with law and the appellant may have just signed the same as a witness. This contention is misconceived as the facts in the case of Mangal Singh v. Tek Ram and Others, (supra) clearly indicate that the other signatories to the document, who had signed the same, had to face similar consequences and the present appellant could not escape from the same conclusion. The document also was held not to be executed because of any fraud or misrepresentation.
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
1