Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Mousomi Dey – Appellant
Versus
Shikha Dey – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “Code”) against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.10/2017 whereby the First Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2016 passed in Title Suit No.125/2008 by the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, Assam.
3. The instant appeal has been taken up for consideration at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the whether there arises any substantial question of law for admission of the instant appeal to be formulated. For the purpose of deciding the said aspect to the matter, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts of the case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties before this Court are referred to in the same status as they were before the Trial Court.
4. The appellants herein as plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest for their respective shares; for delivery of Khas possession of the suit land by demolishing and removing any structures constructed by the de
Merely stating that the said Exhibits are false, would not make the same a substantial question of law. Moreover, it is also a well established principle of law that to be a substantial question of l....
Point of Law : Question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law entitling the appellant to a certificate under (the then) Section 110 of the Code.
The validity of a sale deed confers title to the purchaser, and claims of permissive occupation by defendants do not negate this ownership.
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are binding unless demonstrated to be perverse; appeals under Section 100 cannot disturb established facts without substantial questio....
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
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
