Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ROHIT KAPOOR
Ved Parkash Paliwal – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Council Panipat, Now Municipal Corporation Panipat, Through Its Commissioner – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Kapoor, J.
The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent, has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat has been set aside.
2. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as per their status before the trial Court, i.e. the appellants shall be referred as 'plaintiffs' and respondent as 'defendant'.
3. Brief facts of the case as set up by the plaintiffs in their plaint, are that they are joint co-sharers in possession of land as described in the plaint, measuring 70 kanals 07 marlas (mentioned as 70 bighas 07 biswas, in written submissions and jamabandi on the record), situated in Bagh Sher Afgan, District Panipat. The plaintiffs and other co-sharers divided the said land into various plots for using the same as per their convenience, for their factories and residences. Some joint land was left by them, which was to be used and is being used exclusively by them and other co-sharers for ingress
While examining the judgment of trial court, the appellate court has to render its finding only after dealing with all the issues of law as well as of fact and with the oral as well as documentary ev....
The court affirmed the Plaintiffs' easementary rights based on historical use and legal documentation, emphasizing the significance of such rights in property law.
The court affirmed that adverse inferences can be drawn from a party's failure to produce pivotal witness testimony and pertinent evidence, impacting the burden of proof in established property right....
Failure to seek declaration and recovery of possession is a legal hurdle in granting a mandatory injunction. The burden to establish the right shifts to the plaintiff, who must prove the disputed lan....
The court ruled that a plaintiff's acquiescence to ongoing construction delays the right to seek mandatory injunction, favoring monetary compensation instead.
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
