Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Sant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mangal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. governance of regular second appeal in punjab and haryana (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ownership and possession claims of the plaintiff (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trials and dismissals concerning claims of ownership (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on previous judgments (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. entitlement to ownership despite lack of will proof (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. final decree of ownership and injunction orders (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the PUNJAB COURTS ACT , 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.
2. While filing the second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the judgments and decrees passed on 06.11.2013 and 25.08.2015 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), S.B.S.Nagar, and the Additional District Judge, S.B.S.Nagar, respectively.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-Sh.Sant Ram filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration, to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the
The Regular Second Appeal in Punjab is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 of the CPC, and minor irregularities do not invalidate a decree without proof of fraud.
The Regular Second Appeal in Punjab and Haryana is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, not Section 100 of the CPC, reaffirming the binding nature of prior judgments on possession.
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
