High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bharat Singh And Another vs Bhatheri And Others on 7 September, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Singh And Another vs Bhatheri And Others on 7 September, 2009
RSA No. 2962 of 2008(O&M)             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                RSA No. 2962 of 2008 (O&M)

                                Date of Decision: September 07, 2009


Bharat Singh and another
                                                         ...... Appellants

      Versus

Bhatheri and others
                                                         ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate
            for the appellants.

                   ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for injunction

restraining the respondents from dispossessing them on the ground that

they had inherited the land by virtue of will of Smt.Surta.

The following questions have been proposed:-

a) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the courts

below are tenable in law?

b) Whether the findings recorded by the courts below are

perverse?

c) Whether when the defendants have categorically

admitted Smt. Surta to be owner of house in question in their
RSA No. 2962 of 2008(O&M) 2

written statement, then can the plaintiffs be non-suited on the

ground that Smt.Surta was not the owner of the said house?

d) Whether an electricity bill produced to show the

possession of the plaintiffs can be disbelieved on the ground

that it does not find mention the father’s and village’s name?

It would be seen that all the questions are questions of fact.

Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings

recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of

evidence so as to liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C.

Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are

dismissed.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

September 07, 2009
sunita