Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Rina Mazumder – Appellant
Versus
Dipak Kumar Mazumdar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. F. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. J. Deka, 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 26.11.2008 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.2/2002 whereby the Appeal filed was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.315/1993.
3. It is seen from the records that vide an order dated 21.06.2010, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the instant Appeal by formulating the three substantial questions of law which are reproduced therein under:
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.
There can be appointment of Amin Commission even at appellate stage.
The courts upheld the plaintiff's occupancy rights over the disputed land, emphasizing the necessity of proper procedural adherence and the inadmissibility of unregistered documents for establishing ....
Point of Law : Merely giving suggestions and not adducing any evidence to substantiate the same, cannot entitle the plaintiff to a decree as prayed for.
The First Appellate Court must ensure substantial compliance with procedural norms, even if points for determination are not separately framed, provided all relevant issues are addressed.
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....
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....
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.
Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.....
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
