S SEVA SINGH Vs. S SURJEET SINGH
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
S Seva Singh
S Surjeet Singh
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 8 -12 -1986 passed by learned District Judge, Budgam in Civil First
Appeal titled S. Harbans Singh & ors. v. S. Seva Singh & another, whereby
and where -under the appeal of the respondents -defendants came to be
allowed and the judgement and decree passed by the trial court viz.
Munsiff Budgam dated 5 -9 -1973, so far it related to partly decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff, came to be set aside.
(2.) IT is necessary to give a flask back of the case, which is on the dockets of the civil courts for last five decades, the womb of which
has given birth to the instant appeal.
(3.) APPELLANTS plaintiffs had filed a civil suit before Munsiff Budgam on 21 -8 -1958 seeking decree of declaration, injunction and
possession. Defendants -respondents filed written statement. Six issues
came to be framed on 15 -10 -1958. There -after plaintiffs filed an
application for amendment which came to be granted and accordingly they
filed amended plaint on 9 -9 -1959. Defendants -respondents filed amended
written statement on 6 -10 -1959. During pendency of the suit, the sole
defendant died and his legal representatives came to be brought on
record. Court more issues were framed on 7 -1 1 -1960, out of which two
issues were treated as preliminary issues and the suit came to be
dismissed on the point of limitation vide judgement and decree dated
15 -5 -1962. the plaintiff - - appellant assailed the said judgement and decree before the court of District Judge, Srinagar, which came to be
allowed vide judgement and decree dated 24 -8 -1965 and the judgement and
decree of the trial court came to be set aside and the case was remanded
to the trial court for deciding it afresh after providing opportunities
to the parties adduce evidence. The defendants; respondents assailed the
judgment and decree of District Judge Srinagar, before this court and
this Court vide judgement decree dated 21 -9 -1966 up -held the said
judgement of the learned District Judge and directed the parties to lead
evidence on the point of limitation, the onus of proof of which was on
the plaintiffs -appellants. The file came up before the trial court i.e.
Munsiff Budgam on 15 -1 1 -1969 and it directed the parties to lead
evidence. The trial court vide order dated 1 -12 -1970 framed five more
issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. The case was finaly
argued and decided by the trial court vide judgement and dated
15 -09 -1973, whereby and where -under suit of the plaintiffs? came to be partly dismissed and partly decreed to the extent of 6 kanals and 2
marlas falling under survey No. 104 situated at village Shogapora, Budgam
and held the plaintiff entitled to decree for recovery of possession for
the said land.
It appears that the plaintiff had not challenged the judgement and decree of Munsiff, Budgam dated 15 -9 -1973 and that part of the
judgement had attained finality, but defendants - - respondents had
challenged it to the extent of decreeing the suit in favour of the
plaintiff. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside
the judgement to that extent, vide the impugned judgement and decree.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.