Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Kuldeep – Appellant
Versus
Raghuvir Singh (Deceased) through his LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2022 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 160 of 2013, titled as Raghubir Singh vs. Kuldeep, have been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant through his agents, servants or family members from blocking the path by way of fencing, digging the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 942/112 situated in Tika Saloh, Mouza Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. In alternative, the plaintiff sought decree for possession in case the defendant succeeded in raising forcible construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner
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.
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 ....
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....
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.
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.
The court discussed the legal principles related to the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff had encroached on the defendant's land and failed to prove their case. The court also held that there was no substantial question of l....
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 High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse; a substantial question of law must be established for a second appeal under CPC.
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
