Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah
Taizuddin S/o. Lt. Suburuddin – Appellant
Versus
Saiful Islam S/o. Lt. Kabir Molla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's identity and case background (Para 1) |
| 2. formulation of substantial question of law (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. modification of decree required based on findings (Para 4) |
| 4. details of court's ruling and orders (Para 5) |
| 5. conclusion of appeal disposition (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. N. Hoque, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. This Court vide an order dated 26.05.2025 had admitted the instant Appeal by formulating a substantial question of law which reads as under:-
Whether the learned Courts below were justified after coming to a satisfaction that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2 Kathas of land out of the Schedule A land to declare specifically the right, title and interest over the Schedule B (1) land without effecting partition that too when admittedly, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the Schedule B (1) land?
3. The question which arises in the instant Appeal as to whether the substantial question of law which has been formulated by this Court under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) is involve
The court affirmed that rights must be specified in decrees for land entitlements, necessitating modifications in circumstances of non-possession.
The plaint should be interpreted as a whole, allowing claims within the ambit of further reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, despite procedural objections raised by defendants.
The court established that factual determinations regarding possession and the validity of sale deeds do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the CPC, and affirmed the aut....
The court ruled that an ex parte decree is defective and non-executable; both parties must have the opportunity to present their claims and evidence in a partition dispute involving jointly owned pro....
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.
An appellate court cannot modify parts of a decree not challenged in the appeal; the executing court retains authority to enforce such unchallenged decrees.
The main legal point established is that the scope of partition as per the preliminary decree was limited to the specified property and did not extend to the building, which was found to be outside t....
Court emphasized the necessity of determining ownership shares in property disputes in accordance with procedural rules to maintain legality in partition suits.
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
