Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Madhuri Goswami Sarma W/o Jitu Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Alaka Dutta B. W/o Biren Dutta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and nature of the case established. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's ownership agreement and actions against defendant. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendants' arguments and claims about noc involvement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial court's reasonings on admissions and procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. points for determination noted. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. defendants' arguments regarding trial process. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal arguments regarding the limitation period. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. plaintiff's rebuttal to defendants' claims. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. issues surrounding a deed of compromise discussed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. execution and acknowledgment of the deed of compromise. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. conclusion and judgment of the court. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), in connection with Title Suit No. 690/2022, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. The appellants, (i) Madhuri Goswami Sarma, (ii) Aman Ulla, (iii) Joynal Abdin and (iv) Md. Rahul Ali were the defendants and the proforma defendants arrayed in th
The failure of the defendants to explicitly deny claims in their written statement constituted acceptance of the plaintiff's assertions, allowing for a decree of specific performance despite claims o....
Allegations of fraud in property disputes require specific particulars; negligence in substantiating claims bars relief under limitation laws.
A contract for sale is enforceable where there is evidence of readiness to pay the balance amount, and claims of fraud must be substantiated to invalidate the agreement.
Point of law: Absence of any material, that the plaintiff had exercised undue influence in obtaining the sale agreement from the defendant at the time of the alleged loan transaction.
The plaintiff must prove the execution of the contract and her readiness to perform to be entitled to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, and the mere registration of a document does ....
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
A plaintiff must prove the validity of a sale agreement and show readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for specific performance.
(1) Compromise of suit – For a valid compromise in a suit there has to be a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by parties which would then require it to be proved to satisfaction of....
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
