Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Atma Ram – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint land dispute post alleged family partition (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial issues and concurrent suit dismissals (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. no substantial question of law argued (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. evidence confirms partition and separate possession (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. co-sharers may develop land without partition prejudice (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. no interference in concurrent factual findings (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. second appeal dismissed for lack of merit (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024 as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. dated 27.09.2022 has been affirmed.
2. The facts, which arises in the present case, are that the plaintiff/appellant preferred suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents. It was averred in the plaint that one of the co-sharers, namely, Kashmir S
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....
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 ....
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....
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 ....
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.
The court discussed the legal principles related to the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.
The presumption of truth in the revenue record regarding joint ownership prevails, establishing that separate possession does not equate to partition without legal acknowledgment under relevant land ....
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.
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
