Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Fakir Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
CM-17062-C-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 70 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellants, the same is allowed and delay of 70 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
RSA-6005-2019 (O&M)
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land as described in the plaint on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 20052006 and accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to get the names incorporated in the revenue record as owners in possession of the suit land in place of defendant No.1. Consequential relief was also sought that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be issued to restrain defendant No.1 from
Appellate courts cannot interfere with factual findings established by lower courts unless substantial legal errors are demonstrated.
The court upheld that additional evidence in appeals is only admissible when adequately justified, and second appeals can only challenge legal errors, not factual determinations.
The BPPHT Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, bar civil suits challenging settlement orders unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are proven, emphasizing the finality of administrative decisio....
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
The central legal point established is the impact of pending revenue proceedings on the grant of permanent injunction and the significance of a revisional court's decision in establishing ownership.
Consent decrees based on family settlements cannot be challenged on incorrect facts unless fraud is proven; registration is not required for such decrees when they involve pre-existing rights.
Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.
The presumption of truth in the revenue record regarding joint ownership prevails, establishing that separate possession does not equate to partition without legal acknowledgment under relevant land ....
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
