Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
District Collector – Appellant
Versus
Raj Balam Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The respondent, Raj Balam Prasad (plaintiff) filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2021 against the revisionist nos. 1 to 3 (defendants). It was the respondent's case that plot no.42 with an area of 0.0200 hectares (suit land) was provided to his father by late Zigmee Wangyal Lassopa in the year 1985 and after the demise of his father the suit land came to his possession with the consent of Jolly Wangyal Lassopa, son of late Zigmee Wangyal Lassopa. The respondent constructed two storied RCC structured in the suit land with the consent of Jolly Wangyal Lassopa who is the title holder of the suit land. The two storied RCC structure is in the respondent's possession and occupation but there is no change in ownership and title of the suit land as it is a Bhutia/Lepcha land. When the respondent constructed the two storied RCC structure no one including the Government objected to it and the Power Department in fact provided electricity supply. During 2008 the Town Planner blamed the respondent that he had constructed the two storied RCC structure on the suit land by encroaching State Government drain from west side of the suit land. The respondent requested the Tow
The court affirmed that a Civil suit is maintainable when a demolition notice is contested, emphasizing that limitations apply only where expressly provided, allowing full examination of possession c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the trial Court need not conduct a roving inquiry into the fact....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to sue first accrues when the fact first comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and if a suit is filed beyond the limitation perio....
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....
A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is maintainable in a civil court, even if the property in question is alleged to be an endowment property.
The trial court must evaluate plaints for clear causes of action, dismissing those that are vexatious and lack legal foundation.
The demolition of protected structures without due process (notice) is illegal and entitles the occupier to reconstruct the premises at their own cost, maintaining the obligations under prior agreeme....
A plaint should not be rejected unless it manifestly discloses no cause of action or is vexatious; here, the court found it did disclose a cause of action based on registered title.
A plaint must be deemed to disclose a cause of action if the statements therein, taken as true, allow for a claim to proceed, regardless of subsequent merits, as defined under CPC.
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
