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

ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Matar Mahato @ Mahindra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Umesh Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment in Title Appeal No. 29/2018 by the learned District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.03.2018 and 27.03.2018 respectively in Title Suit No. 486/2007 has been set aside and on finding that there is complete lack of documentary evidence in support of the contentions raised by the plaintiff/appellant, the entire case has been remanded to the trial court under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for retrial and disposal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has raised a slender issue that in case of both the parties to the suit claiming oral partition of ancestral land, there could be no documentary proof and if the appellate court was not in agreement with the findings of the trial court, the judgment of the trial court could have been reversed but the same ought not to have been remanded.

4. It was further contended that there is no finding of the appellate court that the trial court did not dispose of the suit as required under Order 20 Rule 3 or under Order 11 Rule


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