Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Karamjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Harbans Singh deceased through his LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harkesh Manuja, J.
1. Appellant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide which judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Mohali was upheld and the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for possession as well as recovery of damages for illegal use of his premises, stood decreed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that with respect to house No. 1683 (ground & first floor) situated at Phase-3B2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession with further prayer for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- for use and occupation of the said house illegally from April 2012 to April 2018 onwards till its vacation and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the said house till the delivery of possession. Respondent-plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of demised property vide mutation dated 03.01.1979 and also averred in the plaint that he raised roof of the said house on 08.03.2009. It was further averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant prepared a fictitiou
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to substantiate a tenancy claim results in dismissal of the appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are found to be perverse to the extent....
The court upheld the principle that a party must diligently pursue its case and present a defense, and that uncontroverted evidence can lead to a judgment in favor of the presenting party.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
a tenant cannot challenge the title of the owner/landlord, and there is an estoppel in this regard, in terms of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
A tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord while concurrently asserting adverse possession; such defenses are mutually exclusive under established legal principles.
A trespasser cannot claim ownership based on unlawful possession; clear legal grounds for ownership must be established.
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
