Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, August 4

Almost a century after the ruler of erstwhile princely state of Malerkotla gifted a property to a group engaged within the skinning, washing and drying of animal pores and skin, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has directed the trial court docket to determine, amongst different issues, the deed’s validity.

Justice Arun Palli additionally made it clear in his order that the query of title is also examined in a go well with for “injunction simpliciter”. The case has its genesis within the property being utilized by the group “since time immemorial”.

Justice Palli noticed that the then ruler handed an order recognising their possession and bequeathed the property of their favour vide reward deed dated November 26, 1926. Accordingly, the “go well with property” was in the neighborhood’s steady and uninterrupted possession.

Justice Palli additionally noticed the plaintiff-community members indisputably filed a “simpliciter go well with for injunction”. However injunction prayed for was not merely to guard possession, but additionally to avert any interference of their possession, administration, management and proper to boost constructions over the go well with property.

One of many points framed by the trial court docket was whether or not the disputed property was owned and possessed by the group and was gifted away to it vide the reward deed and whether or not it was solid and fictitious doc?

Justice Palli asserted each the perimeters have been acutely aware of the true essence of the controversy. They, accordingly, led their proof. But, the trial court docket selected to not report any discovering on the six points framed by it after forming the opinion that the query of possession/title couldn’t be examined in a simpliciter go well with for injunction.

Justice Palli additional asserted that the trial court docket refrained itself even from addressing the query relating to the reward deed’s execution and validity as that too, in its opinion, can be figuring out “nothing however the possession of the plaintiffs”.

Justice Palli added that the trial court docket’s strategy, evaluation and understanding of the matter was, ex facie, flawed. “There can’t be any quarrel with the overall proposition that in a simpliciter go well with for injunction, the query of title/possession can’t be examined. However, it has not been laid down as but as an absolute precept of regulation that however something, the query of title can by no means be examined or gone into in a go well with for injunction simpliciter”.

Justice Palli added 20 years had passed by for the reason that establishment of the go well with. The attraction within the matter was determined by the appellate Courtroom on November 25, 2013. “The trial court docket shall re-decide the go well with on the idea of the proof already on report.”

The case

The ruler of erstwhile princely state of Malerkotla had gifted a property to a group engaged within the skinning, washing and drying of animal pores and skin vide reward deed dated November 26, 1926.


#Malerkotla

Supply hyperlink


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *