Back
SATYEN VAIDYA
Madhavi Mehra alias Urmila – Appellant
Versus
Kamla Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
1. Heard.
2. By way of Regular Second Appeal, judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 35-D/XIII/2013, titled as Smt. Madhavi Mehra vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Others, affirming judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006, has been sought to be assailed.
3. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned Trial Court. Appellant herein was plaintiff and respondents herein were defendants in the same sequence as impleaded in the instant appeal.
4. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the appeal are that plaintiff is co-owner of land, with Shri Kumud Handa and defendant, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1746 and 1747, measuring 1249-56 sq. mtrs. situated in Up-Mohal Gamroo, Mouza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., which had come in their ownership by way of transfer from defendant No. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are owners of Khasra Nos. 1745/1 and 1745/7, which abutts the abovesaid land of plaintiff, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1746 and 1
Point of Law : Plaintiff applied for demarcation of land and without ascertaining the limits of boundaries of respective land of the parties, her apprehension was unfounded.
Validity of demarcation report as evidence and the requirement for specific boundaries in property disputes.
The plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of her suit was rejected as the demarcation report showed lawful encroachment on government land.
Appellate Court may permit additional evidence to be produced whether oral or documentary, if conditions mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied.
The reliance on the demarcation report by the lower courts was justified, as it found no encroachment on the suit land. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence to challenge the report, and therefore....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for demarcation of disputed land and the application of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.
The appellate court must not overstep its jurisdiction or set aside decrees that are not part of the appeal unless clearly justified; ownership claims must respect established legal boundaries and ow....
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
