Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Narain Singh (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Sohan Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
1. Defendant No.1-Appellant (Narain Singh) assails the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1990 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1989 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior SubJudge, Faridabad, vide which the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff (Sohan Lal), was decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. Plaintiff-Sohan Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1-Narain Singh from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated within the revenue estate of Village Mawai, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'suit land'). It was claimed by the plaintiff that he along with defendant No.2-Mohan Lal (proforma defendant), who are real brothers were in cultivating possession under Shamilat Deh, being co-sharers of the suit land. Reliance was placed upon entries in the Jamabandis for the years 1
Revenue records do not confer title; civil courts lack jurisdiction over revenue matters, affirming the authority of revenue officials in correcting entries and ejecting trespassers.
Possession established through continuous use despite challenges from opposing parties upholds rights against forcible dispossession.
The onus of proving exclusive possession after partition lies with the plaintiff, and findings must be based on evidence rather than conjectures and surmises.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
Concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse.
The appellate court can reverse trial court findings and consider all evidence in a permanent injunction suit, even after confirming some findings, if the trial court inadequately assessed the eviden....
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
