SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(HP) 231

M.R.VERMA
BALI RAM – Appellant
Versus
MELA RAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jitender, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. D.C. Jishtu, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court emphasizes the need for a local investigation to elucidate the matter as per Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC. (!) - The findings that the defendant was not interfering with the plaintiff’s possession were deemed unreasonable and not supported by the record; the case is remanded for a Local Commissioner to conduct a local investigation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. (!) (!) (!) - The appeal is allowed; findings on issues 1 and 2 are set aside; findings on issues 3 to 9 are sustained; remand to appoint a Local Commissioner to ascertain the actual position of the land khasra No. 151/1 and to report, after which issues 1 and 2 will be re-decided. (!)

What is the court's position on the need for a local investigation under Rule 9 of Order 26 CPC?

What is the outcome of the appeal regarding the findings on possession and interference?

What directions are given to the lower appellate Court regarding local demarcation and remand?


JUDGMENT

M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ghumarwin dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, have been affirmed.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) restraining him from interfering in the suit land comprising Khewat/khatauni Nos.-61 min/67 min, Khasra No. 151/1, measuring 1-3 Bighas, situate in village Matyal, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that he alongwith the proforma respondent/defendant is owner in possession of the suit land having a residential house, cowshed and courtyards on the suit land and their possession as such is since time immemorial. The defendant illegally got allotment of two Biswas of Nautor land out of the/adjoining khasra No. 251/24






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top