GURDEV KAUR R.P. KANSAL vs OM PARKASH ETC. — RSA/2686/1994

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010296031994

Filing Number

RSA/2686/1994

Filing Date

15-Aug-2207

Registration No

RSA/2686/1994

Registration Date

15-Aug-2207

Judge

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Coram

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURDEV KAUR R.P. KANSAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.OM PARKASH ETC.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Aug-2207

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/2686/1994

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Sandeep MoudgilView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant's second appeal and upheld the lower courts' findings that the respondents (plaintiffs) are owners of the disputed agricultural land in Nabha, rejecting the defendant's plea of adverse possession. The court held that the defendant failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse possession—specifically, the exact date of commencement, continuity for the statutory 12-year period, and hostile nature of possession—finding she had occupied the land for only about a decade (from 1976) as an unauthorized occupant reflected in revenue records as "Gair Marusi," not as a hostile claimant to ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant's second appeal and upheld the lower courts' findings that the respondents (plaintiffs) are owners of the disputed agricultural land in Nabha, rejecting the defendant's plea of adverse possession. The court held that the defendant failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse possession—specifically, the exact date of commencement, continuity for the statutory 12-year period, and hostile nature of possession—finding she had occupied the land for only about a decade (from 1976) as an unauthorized occupant reflected in revenue records as "Gair Marusi," not as a hostile claimant to ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case