MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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

Latest Legal News