Back
JAVED IQBAL WANI
Swarn Salaria – Appellant
Versus
Baldev Raj Sharma – Respondent
HEADNOTE
Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977 (1920 A.D.)
Section 100 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 105 , 139 of LAND REVENUE ACT , Svt. 1996--Second Appeal--Ex parte decree--Application regarding rejection of plaint pending--Application does not fall within any of the clauses provided in Order 7 Rule 11, which would have warranted the rejection of the plaint of the respondent--Even if, it is assumed that, Respondent was barred by any law to maintain the suit in question, yet indisputably neither Section 105 nor Section 139 of the LAND REVENUE ACT referred in the application barred with the institution or the trial of the suit filed by the Respondent--Impugned judgment(s) and decree(s) passed by the courts below, seemingly, have been correctly and rightly passed having regard to the case setup by Respondent 1 and evidence in ex parte led in support thereof--No interference--Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant Civil Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein, for short 'CPC') is directed against judgment and decree passed by the Court of Sub-Judge Katra dated 15.12.2008 in a suit titled as "Baldev Raj Sharma v. Swarn Salaria & Ors." (for short
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.
The court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit for declaration of customary rights, emphasizing the importance of maintaining legal procedures during appeals.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
The court upheld that the limitation period for challenging a sale deed starts upon knowledge of the transaction, confirming the lower courts' rejection of the plaint on limitation grounds.
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
