Case: Jai Krishan (deceased) through his LRs. Lalit Gupta and Ors. Vs Daulat Ram. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. |
| Issue | Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1963 - Sections 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 39, Rule 2A |
| Judgement Date | July 13, 2010 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Surjit Singh, J., (At Shimla)
-
This regular second appeal by the appellants-defendants is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.4.1999, of learned Additional District Judge, whereby dismissing appellants-defendants appeal, trial Court's judgment and decree, dated 28.8.1986, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, as also mandatory injunction, have been affirmed.
-
Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
-
Whether the lower appellate Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the defendant-appellants to lead additional evidence particularly to prove the entries in the bahi which document was placed on record along with the written statement? Further application was also moved in the Trial Court permitting the defendants to prove such documents and also to permit the defendants to appear as witnesses on account of hasty closure of their evidence? Are not findings of the courts below vitiated for not granting due and adequate opportunity to the defendants to lead proper evidence, is not lower Appellate Court acted beyond jurisdiction to reject the application for additional evidence on untenable grounds?
-
Whether the findings rendered by the lower appellate court on Issue No. 5A are illegal and unsustainable particularly without giving the specific findings of comparative hardships to the parties and possibility of the adequately compensating the plaintiff. Are not principle of co-ownership and partition wrongly construed and misapplied amounting miscarriage of justice?
-
Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants from changing the nature of the suit land, which was alleged to be joint. Appellants-defendants took the plea of private partition, and stated that in the partition, which had taken place long back and a reference to which was there in one of the Bahis, a portion of the land had fallen to their share and was in their exclusive possession and on that portion, they had raised a shed.
-
An application for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit, was also moved by the respondent-plaintiff, seeking issuance of injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants from raising any construction on any portion of the suit land. Ex parte ad interim injunction was granted soon after the institution of the suit. Suit was instituted in the year 1980. Record...
To continue reading
Request your trial