Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In land disputes across India, particularly in regions governed by laws like the , are common among co-owners seeking to divide joint property. However, a frequent pitfall arises when the suit lacks precise details about the disputed land. A critical question often emerges: when a suit of partition is not clear than can reject it which part of land is claimed when only Abadi khasara number is mentioned in suit?
This blog post delves into this issue, drawing from established legal precedents and principles. We'll explore why vague descriptions, such as mentioning only an Abadi khasara number without boundaries, can lead to rejection, supported by case analyses. Note: This is general information based on judicial trends and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
A partition suit allows co-owners ( or ) to divide joint land holdings under provisions like . For the court to proceed, the must clearly identify the suit property. This includes:
Merely stating an Abadi khasara number—referring to village habitation land—is typically insufficient. often involves residential or non-agricultural use, complicating partitions due to its nature under , where the may declare it . 2007 0 Supreme(UK) 282
Courts demand precision because vague prevent effective , trial, and . Without clear identification, defendants cannot respond adequately, and the court risks partitioning the wrong land.
When a suit for partition is not clearly defined regarding the specific part of land claimed—particularly when only an Abadi khasara number is mentioned—the can reject the suit for lack of proper identification of the property in dispute.
This principle is rooted in the requirement for precise . As observed in key judgments:
The description of the suit property must be precise, including boundaries, khasara numbers, and other identifying features. Without such details, the court cannot effectively adjudicate the matter. 2011 0 Supreme(HP) 2340
In that case, the court dismissed the suit because the plaintiff failed to prove proper identification, noting the land was described merely as Abadi in Mohal Mugdial, Mauja Chhattar, without boundaries. Similarly:
For a suit of partition, the property must be properly described, including boundaries, and that a mere khasara number without boundary details makes the suit vague and liable to rejection. 2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 395
These rulings underscore that courts prioritize identifiable claims to avoid ambiguity.
Abadi' is mentioned. ... officer is not mentioned in the Khasara. ... In the Khasara of the years Samvat 2035 to 2038 Ex.P/8 the nature of the land was mentioned as Nazul Abadi. In such exhibit the Municipality has been mentioned in column No.3. ... The plaintiff has not made clear how they claim joint ownership and joint possession of the land if they belong to....
Unfortunately, there are no clear cut pleadings or evidence in this regard. As held by the learned lower Appellate Court it is not even clear as to how much of the suit land is still lying vacant. ... It is not in dispute that the nature of the suit land is “Abadi Deh”. It is also not in dispute that the documents on record do not show the extent of shares enjoyed by the plaintif....
The learned trial court framed Issue whether Abadi exists in the disputed land or not. ... In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was contended in paragraph no. 14 that the major part of the suit land is covered by Abadi hence the suit for partition was not maintainable. ... 5. ... Dehradun has declared land measuring 0.528 Hectare out of the suit #....
The learned trial court framed Issue whether Abadi exists in the disputed land or not. ... In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was contended in paragraph no. 14 that the major part of the suit land is covered by Abadi hence the suit for partition was not maintainable. ... 5. ... It is pertinent to mention that in the partition suit, the co-tenure....
Though the petitioner’s counsel contends that the boundaries of each of the extent of land needs to be shown, the said note mentioned by respondent No.1-plaintiff makes it clear that the extent of land in each survey number has to be ascertained, which is a subject matter of trial. ... Thus, it is made to understand that the Suit is filed seeking partition of the land situated at Ramreddypally Village and that the schedule of the suit#HL_EN....
Though the petitioner’s counsel contends that the boundaries of each of the extent of land needs to be shown, the said note mentioned by respondent No.1-plaintiff makes it clear that the extent of land in each survey number has to be ascertained, which is a subject matter of trial. ... Thus, it is made to understand that the Suit is filed seeking partition of the land situated at Ramreddypally Village and that the schedule of the suit#HL_EN....
In para 17 of its judgment, learned trial Court recorded a finding based on Ex. P/1 to P/9 that after division of Khasra No. 2257, open land falling in Khasara No. 2257/1 is a Nistar Charnoi land and Khasara No. 2257/2 is a Abadi land. None of these lands have been allotted to the defendants. ... The instant appeal is directed against the reversing judgment of the first appellate Court dated 8/5/2001passed by Additional District Judge, Gohad, Distric....
He would further submit that while deciding issue No.1 the trial court erred in law in not considering the fact that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the disputed property i.e. the land situated in Khasara No.6575 (whole) and Khasara No.6576 (partly) and decided issue Nos.1, ... for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit property then the details of boundaries should be very clear and identifiable so that there is no doubt to identify....
Though, initially the suit was also filed for partitioning Khasara no.3, later claim in relation to Khasara no.19 was given up and suit was pressed only in relation to Khasara no.3. Laxman claimed half share in Khasara no.19. ... It is further argued that when defendants sold part of the property in the year 1991, the 1976 partition between the defendants came to the notice of the plaintiff and thereafter suit was ....
He placed the reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in order to demonstrate that the suit for partition before the Revenue Court in respect to the abadi land is not maintainable as well as the revenue entry made during consolidation operation cannot be ignored. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property in question was recorded as abadi in the revenue records, as such, the....
It cannot be done surreptitiously during the course of hearing of a suit, or by the higher fora in appeal or revision. It can be done in case the land is declared to be an abadi under Section 143 of the Act, but not where it is recorded as abadi when the suit is instituted, or if it has lost that character during hearing of the suit or not so recorded even at the time of institution of the suit. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector would be obliged to follow the procedure under the law, and return his finding as envisaged under Section 143 of the Act. In the latter contingen....
The land in suit is claimed to be the land under allotment and once it is held in earlier part of this judgment that land in suit is not the abadi site claimed under allotment by the defendants, the defence ends. In this case defendants have not claimed any possessory title. The findings to the contrary recorded by the Court below in civil appeal is liable to be reversed and is hereby reversed and the substantial question of law B is accordingly decided in affirmative and in favour of plaintiff-appellant to allow this appeal.
1. This Civil 2nd Appeal is admitted to hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether a decree for permanent injunction can be passed by the Civil Court when the suit property is not described in the plaint, more so, when the survey number comprises of more land than that to have been claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs/respondents. (b) Whether a decree for permanent injunction can be granted when there is no evidence to show that any interference is caused in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents.
The rights of the parties has not been decided by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in the order dated 03.06.1988 on merits. Rather, he held that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why this document could not be produced at the time of trial after the exercise of the due diligence. This document is also not required by this Court to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause, because the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharar has simply held in the order that in the disputed khasra....
It is further submitted that the State Government is a necessary party but in the said suit the State has not been made a party. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for partition is with regard to Abadi land, which is a gaon sabha land and as such, the said suit is not maintainable.
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
