Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 1157
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jasbir Singh, J.
Vasu Dev
Versus
Ranvir
RSA No. 983 of 2006,
Decided On : MARCH 20, 2006
The court rejected the appellants' contention of res-judicata based on the finding that the property in this litigation was different from the one previously decided.
Headnote:
Gair Marusi Tenants - Permanent Injunction - The court found that the respondents were in possession of the disputed property and rejected the appellants' contention of res-judicata, as the property in this litigation was different from the one previously decided.
Fact of the Case:
Respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants, claiming to be Gair Marusi Tenants and seeking to restrain the appellants from interfering in their possession. The suit was decreed, and the appellants' appeal failed.
Finding of the Court:
The Courts below found that the respondents were in possession of the disputed property and rejected the appellants' contention of res-judicata, as the property in this litigation was different from the one previously decided. The court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised for interference.
Issues: Suit for permanent injunction, possession of disputed property, contention of res-judicata, substantial question of law
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that the court rejected the appellants' contention of res-judicata based on the finding that the property in this litigation was different from the one previously decided.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, as no substantial question of law was raised, and the findings of the Courts below regarding the possession of the disputed property and the contention of res-judicata were upheld.
1. Respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants on the ground that they were Gair Marusi Tenants, over the property, in dispute. A prayer was made that the appellants be restrained from interfering in their possession. Their suit was decreed. Appellants failed in appeal. Both the Courts below have found it as a matter of fact that the respondents are in possession of the property, in dispute.
2. Contention of the appellants that the suit was barred by res-judicata, was negatived by giving a positive finding that the property, in dispute, in this litigation is different than the one regarding which civil suit between the parties was decided on 14.11.1990. In view of findings given by both the Courts below, no case is made out for interference, as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments. Dismissed.
