Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Takari Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Verma S/o Sri Baliram Verma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ”the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 02/2003 whereby the appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 26/1995.
3. It is seen that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 09.10.2012 admitted the instant appeal by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which are reproduced herein under:
“(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC?
(iii) Whether
The appeal was dismissed as no substantial questions of law were involved; the First Appellate Court's decision to uphold the suit's maintainability was affirmed.
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....
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....
Point of Law : Section 154 (1)(c) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation cannot act as a bar as regards the maintainability of suit for which said cannot also be a substantial question of law involved ....
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.
(1) Rejection of plaint – Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by reading only few lines and passages and ignoring other relevant parts of plaint is impermissible – Court has to go th....
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
