Back
DORAISWAMY RAJU, S.RAJENDRA BABU
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Harphool Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Raju, J.-The State of Rajasthan, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant before us, challenging the summary dismissal of a second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court filed in SB Civil S.A. No. 157/94 and thereby affixing seal of approval to the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent-plaintiff.
2. Having regard to the nebulous manner in which relevant facts are found to have been stated in the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court, we thought it fit and necessary to look into the plaint of which an English translated copy as made for the respondents has been furnished by the learned counsel, appearing before us. The suit property is said to be a plot of land measuring north-south 60 ft. and east-west 40 ft. situated on Nohar-Bhadra Road at Nohar. As per the version of the claim in the plaint he was holding possession of the property since time immemorial by fencing it and in the year 1955 the plaintiff constructed a house on the disputed plot and started living therein. The fact that in the year 1955, he constructed the rooms, kitchen etc., and started living there, is found asserted more than once, c
[No cases identified as bad law. No instances of keywords or phrases indicating "overruled", "reversed", "abrogated", "criticized", "questioned", or similar negative treatments were found in the provided list. All references treat the cases consistently as authorities.]
All cases in the list, primarily *State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through LRs., (2000) 5 SCC 652* (with minor spelling variations like "Harphool", "Harpal", "Harpool") and one distinct case *Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs., (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 708* STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS DURGA SINGH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 298, are categorized here.
**Explanation for State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) 5 SCC 652:**
This case dominates the list (appearing in ~100+ references across nearly all entries).
Explicitly "relied upon" (e.g., STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS DURGA SINGH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 298: "relied upon by learned Deputy Advocate General"; SANTOSH KUMAR SARDAR VS NIL RATAN SARDAR - 2000 0 Supreme(Cal) 637: "an authority for the proposition"; DHARAM SINGH VS PREM SINGH - 2001 0 Supreme(HP) 110: "refers to"; KULDEEP SHARMA VS SATYENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 620: "Learned counsel in support of his argument has referred to").
Cited approvingly for principles like interference with concurrent findings if perverse (REWAT RAM SHARMA VS MUNSHI RAM - 2001 0 Supreme(HP) 382: "it has been held that lackadaisical findings..."; Nathu Lal VS Gulab Bai - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1658: "the Hon'ble Supreme Court held"; Shanti Devi VS Nand Lal - 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1196: "Honble the Supreme Court held that erroneous and perverse finding may be set-aside"), duties of first appellate courts (PURNIMA GHOSH VS REKHA GHOSH - 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 63: "in support of the contention that the First Appellate Court is duty-bound"; Tamizur Rahman Borbhuiya and Ors. VS State of Assam and Ors. - 2008 0 Supreme(Gau) 158: "the Apex Court in Harphool Singh (supra) held"), and adverse possession over public land requiring strict proof (Govind Lal VS Devi Lal - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1681; GURU CHARAN PATNAIK VS CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER - 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 839; Ramesh VS Ved Vrat - 2008 0 Supreme(HP) 466; Fatikpriya Saha VS State of Tripura - 2015 0 Supreme(Tri) 217).
Reaffirmed or "reiterated" in later cases (e.g., SATISH KUMAR VS NANNDER KUMAR - 2007 0 Supreme(HP) 267: "This law has been subsequently reaffirmed and reiterated"; Government Of Kerala VS Joseph - 2023 5 Supreme 689: "refer to Harphool Singh (supra), this Court").
No counter-treatment; consistently positive across High Court and other judgments post-2000.
**Explanation for Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs., (2000) 3 SCC 708 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS DURGA SINGH - 2000 0 Supreme(HP) 298:**
Cited alongside Harphool Singh as relied-upon authority ("relied upon by learned Deputy Advocate General").
No distinct negative or distinguishing language.
This is the sole category as all treatments are positive/citation as authority. Minor typos (e.g., "Harpholl", "Harpal") refer to the same case based on citation and context.
None. All cases show clear positive treatment via reliance/citation as authority. Entries without explicit treatment language (e.g., [Bhabani Sarma VS Narayan Sarma and another - 2003 0 Supreme(Gau) 138, Manojit Nag Chowdhury v. Saptaparni Co-operative Housing Society and Another - 2010 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2) still contextually cite approvingly or neutrally in lists of precedents, with no ambiguity suggesting negative treatment.]
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
