Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Admission is the Best Evidence, Defendants Specifically Admitted Ownership – High Court Sets Aside Appellate Court’s Dismissal of Injunction Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision that had previously dismissed a suit filed by Rachhpal Kaur for a permanent injunction to maintain her possession of a property. The trial court had originally decreed in Kaur’s favor, recognizing her as the rightful owner.

Legal Point of the Judgement: The appeal primarily revolved around the verification of ownership and allegations of encroachment, wherein the First Appellate Court had failed to recognize the defendant’s admissions of the plaintiff’s ownership and did not sufficiently validate the encroachment claims.

Facts and Issues Arising in Judgement: The defendants contested the trial court’s decree, arguing encroachment on adjacent government land and citing a res judicata based on prior litigation against Kaur’s husband. The First Appellate Court dismissed Kaur’s suit, prompting the current appeal to the High Court.

Acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s Ownership: The High Court highlighted the defendants’ admission in their written statement affirming the plaintiff’s ownership, which the First Appellate Court overlooked. Justice Deepak Gupta emphasized, “It is well settled that admission is the best evidence.”

Lack of Proof for Encroachment: The judgment meticulously pointed out the failure of the defendants to prove the alleged encroachment. “The onus was upon the defendants to prove the same,” Justice Gupta noted, indicating that the evidence provided was insufficient.

Res Judicata Not Applicable: The Court determined that the principle of res judicata did not apply, as the previous judgments did not involve Kaur directly and hence could not be used to deny her claims.

Decision of the Court: The High Court not only set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court but also reinstated the trial court’s ruling, reaffirming Rachhpal Kaur’s ownership and right to the property without any proven encroachment.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Rachhpal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Latest Legal News