TIKKA RAM & ANR. versus KARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

TIKKA RAM & ANR. versus KARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Appellants' claim to be tenants and maintain suit for pre-emption was not proved due to lack of documentary evidence (lease deed, rent receipt, substantive revenue records), and reliance on oral evidence, FIR, and counsel's statement was insufficient; High Court order setting aside First Appellate Court was correct.

Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram; Appellants/plaintiffs: Legal representatives of Shivla s/o Shiva and legal representatives of Devita s/o Nanha; Vendor/defendant/respondent: Smt. Kishni; Vendee/defendant/respondent: Kartara (deceased) through LRs; Vendee/defendant/respondent: Surta; Vendee/defendant/respondent: Phool Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Rights, Pre Emption, Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Property Law Tenancy Rights Pre Emption Evidence in Civil Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram

Appellants/plaintiffs

Legal representatives of Shivla s/o Shiva and legal representatives of Devita s/o Nanha

Appellants/plaintiffs

Smt. Kishni

Vendor/defendant/respondent

Kartara (deceased) through LRs

Vendee/defendant/respondent

Surta

Vendee/defendant/respondent

Phool Singh

Vendee/defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants claimed to be tenants based on available evidence and materials on record
  2. 2 Whether suit for pre-emption is maintainable

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants' claim to be tenants and maintain suit for pre-emption was not proved due to lack of documentary evidence (lease deed, rent receipt, substantive revenue records), and reliance on oral evidence, FIR, and counsel's statement was insufficient; High Court order setting aside First Appellate Court was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside.
  • Judgment and order of the trial court restored.