Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Baldev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dayal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, dated 05.03.2025 , whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi,, dated 08.08.2024 whereby the suit filed by plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed, has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction under Sections 34 to 38 of Specific Relief Act in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Mandi on 24.08.2020. It was stated in the plaint that the suit land situated in Mohal Kummi, Tehsil & District Mandi is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and other co-sharers. It was further averred that the suit land is situated adjacent to Nalsar road and it is very valuable land. Since the suit land is joint between the parties and it is unpartitioned, therefore, each and every co sharer has got right and title to use this property and no co-sharer can be permitted to raise
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 ....
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....
Co-owner not entitled to injunction against another's construction on joint land unless proved to amount to ouster or detriment to rights; requires evidence beyond sole testimony, mere jointness insu....
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.
Co-sharer suppressing own construction on joint land approaches without clean hands and cannot restrain others from constructing on their exclusive portion; injunction requires proof of prejudice or ....
The court discussed the legal principles related to the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.
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.
Co-sharers can construct on their respective shares of joint land without infringing on others' rights; exclusive possession does not confer separate ownership until legally partitioned.
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.
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
