Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Nirmalendu Datta – Appellant
Versus
Poulami Datta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. These petitions are consolidated for disposal by a common order inasmuch as the controversy is structured on facts which resemble. By means of filing these petitions under Sectin-115 of the CPC read with Article-227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have urged for correcting the jurisdictional error committed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur, while deciding the case No. Civil Misc No.18 of 2021 and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur in Case No.Civil Misc.18 of 2021. Also for examining the legality, propriety & correctness of the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed in Civil Misc. No.18 of 2021 also to quash the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur in Case No.18 of 2021.
3. In case No. CRP. No.24 of 2022 the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to
In partition suits involving adverse possession, procedural adherence is critical; issues of tenancy must be resolved before partition can occur, and failure to provide proper notice invalidates clai....
Claiming ownership through adverse possession negates any previous tenancy status, as established by multiple legal principles.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
The right to seek partition is inherent and continuous for co-owners; prior dismissal of a partition suit does not bar subsequent suits, provided the parties are different.
Unregistered family partition deeds creating rights in praesenti require registration; exclusive possession by co-sharers does not confer ownership.
Tenancy established during the pendency of a partition suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and does not grant rights against the decree holder.
The onus of proving the defence of ouster/adverse possession in a suit for partition, the estoppel of the respondents, and the conduct of the second respondent in not filing any suit and obtaining a ....
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
