Rsa No.719 of 2010 (Oandm) Vs. State of Haryana Through - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1062100
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-04-2013
AppellantRsa No.719 of 2010 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Haryana Through
Excerpt:
rs.no.719 o”1. in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh. rs.no.719 of 2010 (o&m) date of decision:4. 2.2013 chajju ram ...appellant versus state of haryana through collector & others ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.r.d.yadav, advocate for the appellant. rajan gupta, j. present appeal has been preferred to impugn findings of two courts below on the ground that same are pervers.and based on misappreciation of evidence. plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from auctioning the suit land and from dispossessing him from the same. he also prayed for a decree of declaration that auction proceedings were null and void and not binding on him. he prayed that possession of the suit land be restored to him. on the pleadings of the plaintiff trial court examined whether deceased jhamman was in possession as dohlidar of the land and prior to him his father had possessory rights; whether suit land could be termed as dohli property, thus, auction of same was valid or not. certain other issues were also framed as regards rights of plaintiff. suit was resisted by the defendants who took up the plea that after death of jhamman defendant devi dutt rs.no.719 o”2. had been recorded as dohlidar and was in possession of the land. the trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in which there was an issue whether plaintiff was legal heir of deceased jhamman, if so, had he succeeded to the suit land. the state took up the stand that neither plaintiff not defendant no.3 was entitled to decree for injunction as land vested in the state of haryana. they referred to judgment ex.p7 and contended that neither plaintiff not defendant no.3 had any concern with the suit land. instead, suit was barred by principles of res judicata. it dismissed the suit holding that suit of the plaintiff was barred by principles of res judicata, issues having been decided in earlier suit. it, thus, held that neither plaintiff not defendant nos.3(a) to 3(f) had any right in the suit property. findings were affirmed by the lower appellate court. only plea raised before this court is that judgments of two courts below are based on misappreciation of evidence as well as law. i find no substance in this plea. a perusal of concurrent findings of two courts below reveals that same suffer from no infirmity. no other substantial question of law has been urged. dismissed. (rajan gupta) judge 4 2.2013 'rajpal'
Judgment:

Rs.No.719 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Rs.No.719 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:

4. 2.2013 Chajju Ram ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana through Collector & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Rajan Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been preferred to impugn findings of two courts below on the ground that same are perveRs.and based on misappreciation of evidence.

Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from auctioning the suit land and from dispossessing him from the same.

He also prayed for a decree of declaration that auction proceedings were null and void and not binding on him.

He prayed that possession of the suit land be restored to him.

On the pleadings of the plaintiff trial court examined whether deceased Jhamman was in possession as Dohlidar of the land and prior to him his father had possessory rights; whether suit land could be termed as Dohli property, thus, auction of same was valid or not.

Certain other issues were also framed as regards rights of plaintiff.

Suit was resisted by the defendants who took up the plea that after death of Jhamman defendant Devi Dutt Rs.No.719 o”

2. had been recorded as Dohlidar and was in possession of the land.

The trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in which there was an issue whether plaintiff was legal heir of deceased Jhamman, if so, had he succeeded to the suit land.

The State took up the stand that neither plaintiff not defendant No.3 was entitled to decree for injunction as land vested in the State of Haryana.

They referred to judgment Ex.P7 and contended that neither plaintiff not defendant No.3 had any concern with the suit land.

Instead, suit was barred by principles of res judicata.

It dismissed the suit holding that suit of the plaintiff was barred by principles of res judicata, issues having been decided in earlier suit.

It, thus, held that neither plaintiff not defendant Nos.3(a) to 3(f) had any right in the suit property.

Findings were affirmed by the lower appellate court.

Only plea raised before this court is that judgments of two courts below are based on misappreciation of evidence as well as law.

I find no substance in this plea.

A perusal of concurrent findings of two courts below reveals that same suffer from no infirmity.

No other substantial question of law has been urged.

Dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 4 2.2013 'rajpal'