Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Nalin Mikir S/o Late Bolo Ram Mikir – Appellant
Versus
Pulin Mikir S/o Late Jon Mikir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
2. In this appeal, under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 277/2013.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.2018, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has decreed the suit, declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land described in Schedule B jointly along with defendants Nos. 1-6 and also declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to collect rent from the traders of the Lakhra Charali weekly and daily market to the extent of the share they are entitled to as agreed upon by the parties, who are jointly entitled to collect the rent.
Background Facts:
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:
A suit for declaration of title without seeking possession is not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
Settlement record of rights does not extinguish prior title, and collusive judgments lack binding authority on necessary parties.
Civil Suit - Additional Evidence - Wherever additional evidence is allowed the court shall record reason for its admission.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
The courts determined that original sale deeds substantiate ownership claims and that appellants failed to prove adverse possession or proper misjoinder arguments, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does no....
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
