Law:

Section:

Concurrent findings-- ----Interference in concurrent findings of the Courts below is permissible under law but with certain conditions and the same is not open for all circumstances. Evidence-- ----Concurrent findings cannot be gone into for re-consideration of facts or evidence or for some other inference rather the same can be done if some mis-reading, non-reading of record or evidence or misconstruction of any law is established. Mis-reading, Non-reading of evidence-- ----No interference in concurrent, findings of the Courts below can be made on mere allegation of mis-reading and non-reading. Concurrent findings-- ----Party seeking reversal of concurrent findings has to establish its case for interference and no such resolution can be passed in vacuum, as is found in the instant case. JUDGMENT The above 2nd titled appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Kotli dated 18.08.2011 whereby the judgment and decree passed by Civi1 Judge, Court No. III Kotli dated 25.11.2009 has been maintained to the extent of Issues No. 2 & 3. 2. Briefly, the facts resulting into the filing of the instant, appeal are that mother of present appellants Raj Bi, plaintiff, filed a suit for possession against Babar Hussain and others defendants/respondents, herein on 12.02.2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Court No. 3 Kotli in respect of land comprising Khewat No. 8 Khata No. 36 Survey No. 676 measuring 14 marlas situated in village Kotera Khanqah Tehsil Charhoi District Kotli, stating therein that vide sale-deed dated 17.10.2006, Defendant No. 3 has alienated the suit land to Defendants No. 1 & 2. It was claimed that the plaintiff is co-sharer, co-khewat, as well as she is enjoying the right of easement of the suit land. It was stated that the defendants/vendees are residents of another village and have no preferential vis a visto the plaintiff. It was alleged, that the sale of the suit land was kept concealed, therefore, the plaintiff could not get knowledge of the transaction. It was claimed that the sale was actually worth Rs. 3,00,000/- however, in order to defeat the preferential right of purchase of the plaintiff the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492