Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Pranab Ranjan Bhuiya, S/o. Late Niranjan Bhuiya – Appellant
Versus
Ashit Ranjan Bhuiya, S/o. Late Nikhil Ranjan Bhuiya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the trial court's injunction involves examining agreements and property rights. (Para 2 , 5 , 12) |
| 2. the specifics of contract performance dictate the enforceability and impact of the injunction. (Para 19 , 20 , 28) |
| 3. failure to partition shares as per agreement undermines claims for specific performance. (Para 36 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)
Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. DK Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLI, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.280/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.177/2024 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No.1, Cachar at Silchar (for short, ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby the Appellants herein have been restrained from alienating the title or transferring the possession of the Schedule –A property i.e. 60% of the share of the Appellants to
An injunction cannot be granted when the underlying contract is contingent, as it violates the principles of specific performance and appellate jurisdiction.
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
A minor cannot seek partition of property post valid family partition among ancestors as it lacks legal foundation under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove a valid agreement and readiness to perform, which was not established in this case.
The court affirmed that ancestral property cannot be sold without consent from all coparceners, rendering the sale agreement unenforceable.
The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for perform....
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
A co-sharer in joint property can only transfer their interest, and an agreement to sell is unenforceable if it does not include all necessary parties and if it is contingent upon conditions that hav....
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
