Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Jagannath (Deceased) through his LRs – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the appellants–respondents assail the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 17.01.1994 rendered by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Pehwa, came to be reversed. Through the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”), the appellants seek restoration of the decree lawfully and correctly granted by the learned Trial Court and redressal of the grave miscarriage of justice occasioned by the impugned appellate decision. It is respectfully submitted that the judgment and decree under challenge suffer from manifest perversity, patent errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidence on record, thereby giving rise to substantial questions of law warranting interference by this Court. The appellants, therefore, humbly pray that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the well-considered decree of the learned Trial Court be reinstated.
2. The factual and procedural chronology leading to the institution of the present appeal, delineated in
In partition suits, absence of necessary parties is not fatal if no prior direction was given to join them, emphasizing the importance of pleadings in judicial processes.
Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral property and self-acquired property in a partition suit, and the requirement for evidence to support claims of jo....
The appellant failed to prove her possession over the suit properties. The lower Appellate Court rightly held that under Section 178(A) of the MP Land Revenue Code, she has no right to claim any shar....
The burden of proof regarding partition, the reliance on revenue records and patta, and the presumption of joint-ness in the absence of proof of partition were central legal principles established in....
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
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
