Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
On the Death of Firoja Khatun, Her Legal Heirs,- Wahid Khan – Appellant
Versus
Rajia Begum, W/o Md. Ali Hussain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history and procedural background of the second appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. substantial compliance with order 41 rule 31 cpc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. civil court jurisdiction under section 9 cpc in land acquisition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court affirmation of trial and appellate findings. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal and final disposal of proceedings. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
[1] Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 6. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
[2] This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants/defendant No. 1 impugning the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2014, passed by the court of the learned District Judge, Morigaon in Title Appeal No. 02/2013, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013, passed by the trial court, i.e.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
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....
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 provide points for determination and adequate reasoning when reversing a trial court's decree, as per Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.
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 validity of the amendment to the original notification under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and its impact on the plaintiff's rights to the suit property.
Substantial compliance with procedural rules, such as framing points for determination, is sufficient if the judgment reflects a conscious application of mind and is supported by reasons.
The First Appellate Court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed findings on all relevant issues, failing which its decision is unsustainable.
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
