Ramesh Kaur @ Krishna v. Deputy Director Sainik Welfare

RSA No.135 of 2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.135 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Order:11.07.2018 Ramesh Kaur alias Krishna ..Appellant

Versus

Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) C.M.No.272-C-2017 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal.

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.

MAIN Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession. Defendant in the present case is Deputy Director, Sainik Welfare, Ferozepur Cantt. Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that previously husband of the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed and even appeal filed against the same was dismissed on Naresh Kumar 2018.07.17 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA No.135 of 2017 (O&M) -204.10.2011. Defendant has further pleaded that under the Public Premises Act, persons who were in unauthorized possession were ordered to be evicted on 14.08.1997. Appeal filed by husband of the plaintiff and other legal heirs of Phuman Singh, the father in law of the plaintiff, was also dismissed on 03.01.2006.

Both the courts have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove any right, title or interest in the property. The only plea of the plaintiff is that Phuman Singh had in a panchayat meeting given possession of the land to her in lieu of her rights of maintenance.

In the considered opinion of this court, once Phuman Singh or his legal heirs has been ordered to be evicted under the Public Premises Act and the plaintiff has failed to prove any right, title or interest in the property, this court does not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. The regular second appeal is dismissed.

July 11, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Naresh Kumar 2018.07.17 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh