SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 7278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NEELAM – Appellant
Versus
ABHISHEK AND ANOTHER – Respondent



(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:1)ti(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)

(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:14)

(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:28)(cid:31) ! (cid:29)"(cid:12)#(cid:12)(cid:8)$%(cid:8)&%(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:6)

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)

(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)

(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:14)

(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:21)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:13)

(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:14)

(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:3)’(cid:12)#(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:11)((cid:23))(cid:15)(cid:12)’(cid:1)%(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:12)*(cid:10)+(cid:1)(cid:3)’(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:1),(cid:3))(cid:12)

---

(cid:23)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:24) ti(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:7)ti(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)

(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:6)

---

(cid:12)*(cid:10)+(cid:1)(cid:3)’(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:1),(cid:3))(cid:12).(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:12)/(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:3))0 (cid:30)(cid:6) (cid:31)(cid:17)(cid:2) defendant (Smt. Neelam) assails the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Pathankot, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot vide which the suit for possession filed by the respondents-

plaintiffs was decreed.

2. The respondents-plaintiffs (Abhishek and Ankur) are the sons of Late Vijay Kumar. After the death of the mother of the respondents- plaintiffs, Vijay Kumar had solemnized marriage with the appellant- defendant. The property in dispute is a residential house constructed over a plot measuring 03 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Kuthiali, Had Bast No.341 (Teachers Colony), Tehsil and District Pathankot. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession qua the said house (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed house’) claiming title on account of sale deed dated 14.08.2007 having been executed in their favour by Kamla Devi, who was their paternal grand mother. It was the case of the respondents-plaintiffs that mutation had also been sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed in their favour. The appellant-defendant had been permitted to use the disputed house as a licencee by the respondents-plaintiffs. The respondent-plaintiff Ankur was married and had a minor daughter and had no place to live, as a result of which he was residing in the house of his uncle as a licencee. The other respondent- plaintiff namely Abhishek was unmarried but was planning to get married, on account of which, he was in urgent need of the disputed house. The appellant-defendant was requested to vacate the disputed house which she refused. Accordingly, a notice dated 26.09.2014, terminating the licence of the appellant-defendant was issued to which no reply was received and accordingly, the suit was filed.

3. The suit was opposed by the appellant-defendant. Apart from c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top