Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KIRPAL KAUR – Appellant
Versus
TARA SINGH ETC – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed in their entirety. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1989 rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Patti, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondents–plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the appellant has approached this Court contending that the impugned findings are legally unsustainable and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.
2. The factual backdrop of the case, briefly delineated from the pleadings on record, is as under:-
That Tara Singh and Amrik Singh, respondents No. 1 and 2, instituted a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 65 kanals and 4 marlas, situated in village Sito Meh Jhuggian, Tehsil Patti, fully detailed and described in the heading of the plaint, against the appellant and other respondents. I
The doctrine of res judicata between co-defendants must be applied with care and caution, and the findings in a previous suit can operate as res judicata between co-defendants if certain conditions a....
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
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
