Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Mam Chand – Appellant
Versus
Zile Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of pre-emption suit background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contentions regarding applicability of limitation and evidentiary value of records. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. superiority of special legislation (punjab pre-emption act) over general limitation laws. (Para 10) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and rejection of speculation in appellate findings; suit decreed. (Para 11) |
| 5. dismissal of contempt petition due to insufficient evidence of willful disobedience. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
RSA-1544-2003
1. This Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2000, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Karnal reversed the judgment and decree passed by the joint trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.02.2003.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant–plaintiff claimed himself to be a tenant over the suit property, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint, and asserted that he possesses a superior right of pre-emption. It was pleaded that defendant–Raj Kali, the recorded owner of th
Special statutes governing pre-emption override general limitation laws. Appellate courts cannot reverse findings of fact based on conjectures or speculative inferences regarding familial relationshi....
A claimant of tenancy must prove a contractual obligation to pay rent; mere possession does not confer tenancy rights.
The right of pre-emption is a very weak right.
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
