Back
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Abhilakh – Appellant
Versus
Matai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite the service.
2. The Court on 01.12.2021 had heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, however, on his request, the matter has been listed today for further hearing.
3. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1980 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant seeking a decree of mandatory injunction has been refused insofar as the Plot No.2105/1 and Plot No.2105/2 is concerned. The plaintiff preferred a regular civil appeal against the aforesaid part before the lower Appellate Court which has also been dismissed by means of the judgment and decree dated 10.08.1983 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No.181/1980.
4. The instant appeal was admitted on 08.12.1983, however, while admitting the appeal, no substantial question of law was framed.
5. The Court required the learned counsel for the appellant to urge on the substantial question of law involved in this second appeal to facilitate its hearing on merits.
6. The submission of the
High Court in second appeal under CPC Section 100 cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or involving substantial question of law; co-sharer construction on joint land not ouster ....
In second appeals under CPC Section 100, no interference with concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law or perversity; co-sharers may develop joint property if partition not impo....
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse; a substantial question of law must be established for a second appeal under CPC.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
Co-owner not entitled to injunction against another's construction on joint land unless proved to amount to ouster or detriment to rights; requires evidence beyond sole testimony, mere jointness insu....
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 ....
Co-sharer suppressing own construction on joint land approaches without clean hands and cannot restrain others from constructing on their exclusive portion; injunction requires proof of prejudice or ....
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
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
