Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUNU SAIKIA NEOG, W/o. SARBANANDA NEOG – Appellant
Versus
SARBANANDA NEOG, S/O LATE LABURAM NEOG – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Devashis Baruah, J.)
Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This is an application filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Title Appeal No.9/2023 whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, North Lakhimpur in Title Suit No.29/2022 was affirmed.
3. The instant Appeal is taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code for deciding as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant Appeal.
4. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the Memo of Appeal, three substantial questions of law have been proposed and are involved in the instant Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the three proposed substantial questions of law are reproduced herein under:-
The court ruled that objections to maintainability must be raised in pleadings; failure to do so precludes their consideration at the appellate stage.
The court affirmed that procedural defects in land ownership suits are curable and that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation, allowing recovery of possession.
The failure to determine respective shares of co-owners in a partition suit constitutes a procedural error, necessitating remittance to the lower court for resolution.
Entry in revenue records or mutation does not confer title; title must be established through a declaratory suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
The Assam Board of Revenue cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters that have been conclusively settled by a competent court, especially when procedural requirements like condonation of delay are no....
The court cannot reject a plaint partially; it has to be either rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court also cannot go into the truthfulness or veracity of the averments made in the plaint at th....
The court ruled that framing additional issues after arguments is lawful if it aids in resolving the matter, and failure to substantiate claims regarding tenancy rights led to dismissal of the appeal....
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
