Ashok Kumar Subba vs Bimal Kumar Jain

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Sikk) 1

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Ashok Kumar Subba – Appellant
Versus
Bimal Kumar Jain – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sajal Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.S. Hamal, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1; Mr. Vivek Anand Basnett, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), for the Respondent No.2

Table of Content
1. determination of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellant claims ownership and challenges respondent's claims. (Para 3)
3. consideration of evidence and pleadings by the court. (Para 4)
4. background of parties' dispute and initial claims. (Para 5)
5. court's analysis on issues and findings. (Para 6)
6. legal duty to produce documents in a counter-claim. (Para 7)
7. failure to provide evidence undermines claims. (Para 8)
8. non-filing of defense can constitute admission but allows cross-examination. (Para 9)
9. final dismissal of the appeal and procedural orders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - In this Regular Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for determination;

'A. Whether a Court can pass a Decree declaring a party to be the absolute owner of the suit premises and give him right, title and interest over the same by virtue of a registered document which is an Agreement for Sale?

B. Whether the non-filing of a Written Statement by the Defendant No.1 to the Counter-Claim filed by the Defendant No.2 would constitute admission by the Defendant No.1?

C. Whether the prayer for declaration of ti