"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

"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