SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 457

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
Mahesh Kumar S/o Shyam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Vishambhar S/o Kunwar Pal – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhishek Singh Bahdoriya.
For the Respondent: Narottam Sharma.

Judgement Key Points

The legal judgment emphasizes the crucial importance of proper demarcation of disputed land in property disputes. The court held that without a demarcation report clarifying the situation and boundaries of the land in question, it is not possible to grant relief or make a definitive decision regarding ownership or possession (!) (!) .

The application of Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was deemed appropriate in this context, as it allows the court to appoint a commissioner for local inspection and demarcation of the land, which is essential for resolving disputes involving unclear or disputed boundaries (!) (!) . The court underscored that local inspection and demarcation are necessary steps before any substantive relief can be granted in property disputes, especially when the land boundaries are contested or ambiguous.

Furthermore, the judgment clarified that the appellate court rightly remanded the case for proper demarcation, recognizing that the absence of a demarcation report hampers the ability to determine the true extent and location of the disputed land (!) . The court also highlighted that the appointment of a commissioner for demarcation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is within the court’s authority, particularly when the case involves land boundary issues that require local inspection.

In summary, the judgment establishes that in property disputes involving disputed land, the court must ensure proper demarcation through appropriate application of procedural provisions, notably Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, before granting relief. The absence of such demarcation can be a decisive factor in the dismissal of claims or appeals related to land ownership and possession (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been field by appellants aggrieved by the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2014 by Second Additional District Judge Joura District Morena on 12.05.2014 by which judgment passed by Second Civil Judge Class II Joura in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2012 on 07.02.2014 was set-aside and matter was remanded back to the trial Court for getting the disputed property demarcated by Superintendent, Land Record Morena and thereafter pass appropriate judgment.

2. In brief facts of the case are that appellants have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondents in regard to the land situated at Mouja Sankara Pargana Survey No. 5 the area of which was 4 bigha 3 viswa out of which 1 bigha 13 viswa was acquired for canal and remaining area is 2 bigha and 10 viswa. The Joura-Runipur road passed through survey No. 5 due to which the disputed property is in two parts. 8 Biswa portion of the land is situated in the north side towards Narua and Road. Plaintiff on 27.08.2010 purchased 8 viswa land situated on north side towards Narua and Road of Survey No. 5 area 2 bigha 10 viswa from respondents and took possession over the sai

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top