Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Simru (deceased) through his LRs Purshottam Dass – Appellant
Versus
Jawala Dassi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants against judgment and decree dated 05.12.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 0000060/2013 by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar whereby judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in Civil Suit No.24-1 of 2006 was affirmed.
2. Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit ( Civil Suit No. 24-1 of 2006) against the appellants and respondents No. 2 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in respect of land comprised in Khewat Nos. 57 and 58, Khatauni Nos. 195 to 199, Khasra Nos. 53, 54, 55, 88, 89, 92, 94, 452, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 498, 524 total kitas 18, measuring 1-40-96 hectares, situated in Mauza Molgi, Pargana 15/20, Tehsil Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla (for short, “Suit Land”). It was alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants were joint owners of the suit land and a decree to that effect was prayed. Further, it was also prayed that the order passed
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is fundamental and must be specifically addressed; failure to do so vitiates the judgments.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge partition proceedings by revenue authorities unless a question of title arises or jurisdictional defects are alleged, as prescribed by Section 171 of the H....
Civil Courts cannot adjudicate matters concerning partition as per H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171, which restricts jurisdiction in partition disputes, asserting that remedy lies within revenue au....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over partition proceedings unless fundamental judicial principles are violated; mere erroneous orders do not constitute jurisdictional errors.
The main legal point established is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded in matters within the jurisdiction of revenue officers as per Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
Adverse possession claims require substantial proof of open, continuous possession and are barred from consideration in Civil Courts when conflicting with revenue orders under the Himachal Pradesh La....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation if the plaintiff is not in possession of the land and fails to meet the conditions for imperfec....
A civil suit challenging a revenue officer's order is not maintainable if the party has opted for an appeal against the same order, as per the jurisdictional limits set by the Himachal Pradesh Land R....
The purchase of a specified portion of land in an un-partitioned area results in co-ownership, and jurisdiction for partition lies with both Revenue Authorities and Civil Courts depending on land typ....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.