Back
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Pewgali Basumatari – Appellant
Versus
Rabit Basumatary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. CKS Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2008 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Title Appeal No.02/2006, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2006 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar in Title Suit No.18/2004, is under challenge.
3. Late Nakul Basumatary had five sons namely-Sumadhar Basumatary, Rabit Basumatary, Sankadhar Basumatary, Nilambar Basumatary and Tapan Kumar Basumatary. After the demise of Nakul Basumatary, his sons jointly occupied a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas and 10 Lechas covered by Khatian No.101 (New) 50 (Old) Dag No.102 situated at revenue village Boro-Bhatarmari, Dihidokora, Paraga-Khutaghat (A/E) under Kokrajhar Revenue Circle in the district of Kokrajhar.
4. In the meantime, Sumadhar Basumatary died. The plaint has not disclosed when he actually died. Then, his wife and his two sons filed the suit before the court below praying for partition of the aforesai
First appellate court judgment fail to comply with the provision of law as laid in Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a judgment is not sustainable in law.
Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC reads as under Contents, date and signature of judgment
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of compliance with the provisions of law as laid down in Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the first appell....
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
