NaraIn Singh Vs. V.

NaraIn Singh vs V.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 14, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1162276

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1162276
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Aug 14, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

NaraIn Singh

Respondent

Excerpt

.....rajesh bindal present: mr.m.s. chauhan, advocate for mr.vikram singh, advocate for the appellant. mr.y.p. malik, advocate for respondents no.7 and 8..rajesh bindal j. one of the plaintiffs is before this court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below against him in a suit filed by him along with respondents no.9 and 10 for declaration to the effect that they had become owners of the suit property by way of advers.possession. the trial court dismissed the suit. the appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. considering the judgments of this court in bhim singh v. zile singh, (2006) 3 rcr (civil) 97 (p&h).om parkash v. parkash chand, plr (2006) 143 p&h652and dewaki and others v. dayawanti and others.(2006) 2 rcr (rent) 19 (p&h) and hon'ble the supreme court in gurudwara sahib v. gram panchayat village sirthala and another, 2013(4) rcr (civil) 703, the suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of advers.possession is not maintainable. relevant part from the judgment of hon'ble the supreme court is extracted below: “7. in the second appeal, the relief of ownership by advers.manoj kumar201408.20 11:52 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rs.no.3220 of 2009 [2].possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not maintainable. there cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. even if the plaintiff is found to be in advers.possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such advers.possession has matured into ownership. only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this advers.possession as a shield/defence.”. considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, i do not find that any error has been committed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. no substantial question of law arises. accordingly, the appeal is.....

Full Judgment

Rs.No.3220 of 2009 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3220 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.8.2014 Narain Singh .Appellant v.

Mangal Singh and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.M.S.

Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Y.P.

Malik, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 8..Rajesh Bindal J.

One of the plaintiffs is before this court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below against him in a suit filed by him along with respondents No.9 and 10 for declaration to the effect that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adveRs.possession.

The trial court dismissed the suit.

The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

Considering the judgments of this court in Bhim Singh v.

Zile Singh, (2006) 3 RCR (Civil) 97 (P&H).Om Parkash v.

Parkash Chand, PLR (2006) 143 P&H652and Dewaki and others v.

Dayawanti and otheRs.(2006) 2 RCR (Rent) 19 (P&H) and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahib v.

Gram Panchayat village Sirthala and another, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 703, the suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of adveRs.possession is not maintainable.

Relevant part from the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is extracted below: “7.

In the Second Appeal, the relief of ownership by adveRs.MANOJ KUMAR201408.20 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.3220 of 2009 [2].possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not maintainable.

There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish.

Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adveRs.possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adveRs.possession has matured into ownership.

Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adveRs.possession as a shield/defence.”

Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, I do not find that any error has been committed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.

No substantial question of law arises.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.8.2014 mk MANOJ KUMAR201408.20 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties NaraIn Singh vs V. Same Subject Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Substantial question of law appellate court question of law Gram Panchayat supreme court