SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Gau) 442

AMITAVA ROY
Bisha Mia – Appellant
Versus
Natub Ali – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.H. Rajborbhuiya, N.A. Laskar and A. Mannaf, Advs.

JUDGMENT

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Appellants/Defendants have impugned the judgment dated 17.11.2004 and the decree dated 29.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 24/2003 affirming the judgment dated 22.8.2003 and decree dated 27.8.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. I, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 33/01, decreeing the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

2. I have heard Mr. MH Rajborbhuiya, learned Counsel for the Appellants. For the order, which I propose to pass, issuance of notice on the Respondents is not necessary.

3. The Respondents filed Title Suit No. 33/01 against the Appellants/Defendants and two proforma Defendants praying for a decree inter alia for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land and for confirmation of possession thereof. The land involved in the suit was described to be measuring 6 bighas 2 kathas 1 lechas covered by Dag No. 72 under KP Patta No. 119 situated at village Gadesali Pam, mauza Sarukhetri, District Barpeta, Assam. The Respondents/Plaintiffs' pleaded case in short is that their father late Neshu Seikh held annual patta of the land which was eventually converted












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top