Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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