Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Hoshiar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 22.8.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, (1), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 14.01.2020 has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (1), Kangra, H.P. on 29.01.2014.
3. It was averred in the plaint that as per the record contained in the revenue papers, the suit land is entered in the ownership of the defendants alongwith Smt. Krishana Devi and others after having inherited the same from late Sh. Gujjar Mal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late Chandu Lal was adopted and taken by late Sh. Gujjar Mal as his son and therefore, out of love and affection, Sh. Gujjar Mal gave land measuring measuring 5 marlas to Chandu Lal vide writing dated 21.11.1966. Pursuant to the writing dated 21.11.1966, late Chand
The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
Second Appeal – Substantial question of law -condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a Second Appeal being existence of a substantial question of law, whenever a question is framed by the H....
High Court in second appeal under CPC Section 100 cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or involving substantial question of law; co-sharer construction on joint land not ouster ....
Possession claims must be substantiated with evidence; the mere existence of an old agreement without action does not support a claim for possession after significant delay.
In second appeals under CPC Section 100, no interference with concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law or perversity; co-sharers may develop joint property if partition not impo....
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
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
