SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(P&H) 60

SABINA
Harbans Singh – Appellant
Versus
Madha Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Plaintiff Harbans Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction qua land bearing khasra No.63//18 min (8-0). The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 24.8.2002. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras No.2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under :-

“2. The brief facts culminating into filing the instant appeal are that Harbans Singh plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against Madha Singh and others defendants, restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or dispossessing him from land measuring 08 kanals bearing khasra No.63 R/18, Khewat No.320, Khatauni No.514 as mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and as situated at village Ladha Munda, Had Bast No.86, Tehsil Batala illegally, forcibly and in any manner what-so-ever. It was averred that plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land as per revenue re















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top