Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Baldev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dayal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for injunction against co-sharer's construction on joint land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. parties argue perversity versus concurrent factual findings. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. no proof of ouster or prejudice from prior construction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. injunction discretionary; requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. second appeal limited to substantial questions of law. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. appeal dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 29) |
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, Cou
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.
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
