Executing Court Cannot Go Behind The Decree To Amend Material Discrepancies In Property Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 216 CrPC | No Vested Right For Accused To Seek Alteration Of Charge; Court’s Power Is Exclusive And Discretionary: Jharkhand High Court Violation Of Examination Instructions Regarding OMR Sheets Warrants Mandatory Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Spurious Pesticides Ruin Lives: Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of 'Insecticide Offender' For Endangering Public Order No Double Jeopardy In Service Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Treating Suspension Period As 'Non-Duty' After Employee Pleaded Guilty Advocates Have No Right To Call For Boycott; Any Such Call Or Obstruction Of Court Work Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Telangana High Court Failure To Establish 'Soon Before Death' Cruelty Precludes Conviction Under Section 304B IPC: Patna High Court Repeated False Police Complaints And Reckless Allegations Against Spouse Constitute Mental Cruelty Entitling Husband To Divorce: Madras High Court State Cannot Deny Arrears Of Pension Merely On Grounds Of Delay Without Considering Medical Evidence: Kerala High Court Allegations Of Continuous Sexual Harassment And Intimidation Require Trial; Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed On Plea Of Previous Enmity: Karnataka High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Locus Standi As 'Payee': Himachal Pradesh High Court Advocate-Client Privilege Does Not Grant Immunity From Investigation Into Personal Involvement In Alleged Offence: Delhi High Court Section 302 IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained When Prosecution Fails To Identify Which Specific Accused Delivered Fatal Blow In Group Clash: Gujarat High Court Statutory Interest Under Section 28 Land Acquisition Act Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Amendment Application: Delhi High Court Custodian Cannot Declare Property As 'Enemy Property' Based On Mere 'Ipse Dixit' Without Inquiry And Notice: Bombay High Court Arbitration Clause In Articles Of Association Operates As A Stand-Alone Contract Independent Of Section 430 Companies Act: Calcutta High Court Contumacious Disregard Of Court Orders By Advocates Must Be Addressed By Bar Council: Bombay High Court Refuses To Expunge Remarks Order 1 Rule 9 CPC | Non-Impleadment Of The State Renders Writ Petition Defective When Seeking Financial Relief Against Public Exchequer: Supreme 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