Back
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE
Salma Asgarali Makati – Appellant
Versus
Raj Bucket Factory – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
1. Heard. ADMIT.
2. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 01.09.2021 below Exhibit 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2019 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’). The Appeal From Order bearing No. 30/2022 is filed by the Original Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9(i) and 9(ii) whilst Appeal From Order No. 31/2022 is filed by the Original Defendant No. 6 in the aforesaid Suit. The parties have referred as per their status in the original suit for avoiding the ambiguity. Since both these appeals are filed against one and the same order, they are taken for disposal by a common judgment.
3. The Plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit have claimed declaration of their ownership over the lands bearing Gat Nos. 76, 80, 81, 82, 134, 135, 136/1 and 136/2 situated at village Bamrud, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit properties’). The plaintiffs are also claimed declaration in respect of the Sale-Deeds dated 18.08.2008, 29.04.2013, 08.12.2014, Agreement to Sale dated 29.09.2010 and the Rent Farming Agreement dated 24.05.2004 as the same are nu
Properties purchased with partnership funds are owned by the partnership, necessitating a full trial to resolve ownership disputes.
The court established that maintaining status quo is preferable to appointing a receiver in partnership disputes, emphasizing the need for clear rights and balance of convenience.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving joint family ownership lies with the claimant, and failure to provide sufficient evidence will lead to dismissal of their claims.
A vendor cannot sell land they do not own; a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaratory relief establishing ownership.
The court established that a new title created by the settlement of properties under the O.E.A. Act, 1951 operates to the exclusion of all prior claims, and a stranger purchaser from lawful owners ca....
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging ancestral or joint property, and without evidence to support the claim, the Courts may reject the suit.
Ownership of property alleged as partnership assets must be proven, and previous suits on the same cause of action bar subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
In property disputes, proof of ownership and lawful possession must be established; mere claims without supporting evidence lead to dismissal of injunction requests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
