Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta
Prithi – Appellant
Versus
Satya Narain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J. -
CM-11704-CII-2011
This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures Al to A4, A6, A17 to A19 (wrongly written as Pl to P4, P6, P17 to P19) forming part of trial Court and Appellate Court record.
After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures Al to A4, A6, A17 to A19 are taken on record.
CM-11705-CII-2011
This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for permission to file additional documents.
After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and additional documents i.e. Al to A19 are taken on record.
MAIN CASE
The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants f
In civil suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to substantiate claims of exclusive possession, especially when conflicting evidence exists, such as revenue records indicating joint possess....
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
The courts upheld that mere revenue entries do not establish possession without challenge, and the doctrine of 'possession follows title' was not applicable in this case.
Tenancy – Mere entry of a non-occupancy tenant is not sufficient to determine tenancy and court has to look to column of rent to determine whether tenancy existed or not.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
Failure to admit crucial evidence resulted in prejudice, necessitating remand for reconsideration.
Possession established through continuous use despite challenges from opposing parties upholds rights against forcible dispossession.
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
