Parmeshwari Etc vs Singhari Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 8117 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parmeshwari Etc vs Singhari Etc on 18 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051759




                                        2024:PHHC:051759
110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                        RSA-2087-1991 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 18.04.2024

Smt. Parmeshwari and another
                                               ....Appellants

             Versus

Smt. Singhari and others
                                              ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-    Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for
             Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the appellants
             Ms. Manisha Nehra, Advocate for
             Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondent no. 3, 5 and 6

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

CM-6878-C-2017

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is re-

admitted for hearing. The order dated 08.05.2017 is recalled.

2. CM stands allowed.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the

parties, the main case is taken on Board for final decision.

Main case

4. This is the plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the

concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while

dismissing their suit for the grant of decree of declaration that the

defendants are in cultivating possession of the suit property as tenants on

payment of 1/3rd share (Batai). In substance, the plaintiffs claim that

they inducted Sh.Uday Singh, predecessor of the defendants as tenant on

payment of 1/3rd Batai, which in revenue record has been changed to

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051759

RSA-2087-1991 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:051759

nominal rent. The defendants, while contesting the suit, claimed that the

amount of rent was equivalent to the amount of land revenue, which was

payable to the State Government. They have never paid any amount as

rent to the plaintiffs. The court, after examining the old revenue record,

has also come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish

their case.

5. Though, the learned counsel representing the appellants

made sincere attempt, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court

to any substantive mis-reading, non-reading or perversity in the

judgments passed by the courts below.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

7. Hence, dismissed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

18.04.2024                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  2 of 2