The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

"Mere Assertions Can't Prove Possession": Punjab & Haryana High Court

28 August 2024 1:41 PM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal in a longstanding property dispute, upholding the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alka Sarin, emphasized the absence of credible evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of possession over the disputed land, reaffirming the lower courts' findings that mere assertions without substantive proof are insufficient in property disputes.

The case originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant, Amarjit Singh, who claimed ownership and possession of the disputed property alongside his brothers. The plaintiff contended that they had been in peaceful possession of the property, having planted various trees on it, and alleged that the defendants were attempting to forcibly encroach upon the land. The defendants, however, denied the plaintiff's claims, asserting that they were in possession of their respective shares of the property, and that the plaintiff's allegations were unfounded.

The High Court noted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had found the plaintiff's evidence insufficient to prove his possession over the disputed property. Despite the plaintiff and his brother testifying to their possession, the courts determined that these were merely "bald statements" lacking any corroborative evidence. Justice Sarin pointed out that "there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit property," thereby dismissing the appeal for want of credible proof.

Justice Sarin upheld the lower courts' judgments, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the plaintiff's appeal. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to present any convincing and reliable evidence to establish his possession, and as a result, his suit was rightly dismissed. The court remarked that the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct and that no fault could be found with their decisions.

The dismissal of this appeal by the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinforces the legal principle that possession claims in property disputes must be substantiated by cogent and convincing evidence. The judgment underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide credible proof when seeking relief in property-related cases, as mere assertions without substantial evidence are insufficient to secure a favorable verdict.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2024

Amarjit Singh v. Baldev Singh & Another

Similar News