Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Om Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Jugal Kishor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's claim of interference with construction. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments supporting the plaintiff's exclusive rights. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal references from the consolidation act. (Para 10) |
| 4. final judgment and modifications. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's findings on property rights and passage. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.
1. Appellant-defendant has filed this appeal against the concurrent judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff Jugal Kishor claiming permanent injunction restraining defendants from preventing plaintiff from raising construction of wall from Point I to F as shown in the site plan and from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over agricultural land fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint on the allegations that plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the suit land and few years ago he has raised boundary wall around the land and there is a well bearing No. 27. A Parta of well was left during consolidation for enjoyment of the well. Plaintiff has installed electric tubewell. During consolidation of holdings a Rasta of 3 Karm
The passage in dispute does not constitute a private right for the plaintiff but is a public way, and the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish exclusive rights over it.
The dissolution of previous rights after land acquisition and the plaintiff's failure to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right to the property, which they failed to do.
The evidence presented can establish a claim even in the absence of specific pleading, if both parties knew the case of each other, proceeded to trial, and led evidence.
The judgment establishes the limited jurisdiction of the authority under Section 42 to create passages for exercising easementary rights and addresses the remedy available to petitioners for ensuring....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in cases involving easement ri....
Permanent injunction cannot be granted to protect any unlawful construction obstructing public land.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title and right to the property, which was affirmed by the court based on evidence of joint usage.
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
