Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla
Sachin Dogar – Appellant
Versus
Rattan Dass – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 30.11 2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (CBI)Shimla, District Shimla, (Learned First Appellate Court) vide which appeal filed by the appellant (defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) was partly allowed and the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.4, Shimla, (Learned Trial Court) was modified. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the they are the joint owners in exclusive possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 57, Khatauni No.109-113, Kite-37, measuring 02-53-08 hectare, situated at Moh
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 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....
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....
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
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 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.
Unregistered family partition deeds creating rights in praesenti require registration; exclusive possession by co-sharers does not confer ownership.
Jurisdiction in partition suits remains intact despite subsequent land acquisitions, and inherent powers under C.P.C. cannot override specific statutory provisions.
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
Listen Article