9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dispute between two brothers over ownership and possession of a property, lower appellate court's decision to dismiss the suit for permanent injunction, framing of additional issues by the appellate court without remitting them to the trial court for recording evidence.
Ownership and Possession Dispute: The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against his brother and nephew seeking permanent injunction over a property he claimed to have owned and possessed for 30 to 35 years. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the disputed land was not identifiable and the plaintiff failed to prove his title or possession. Additional Issues Framed by Appellate Court: The lower appellate court framed three additional issues in the appeal, out of which two were found to be redundant as they were already framed by the trial court. The remaining issue was whether the disputed property was identifiable on the spot. The defendants argued that the property was not identifiable as its boundaries were not disclosed in the plaint. Identification of Disputed Property: The plaintiff had described the disputed land by its plot number in the Nagar Panchayat records, which was plot No. 358. Despite the defendants' claim that this plot number was recorded for the first time in 1993, it had been consistently present in the records since 1994. The High Court emphasized that the property was identifiable based on the plot number, even if the exact area or boundaries were not explicitly mentioned in the plaint. Legal Considerations: The High Court referred to Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires the plaint to contain a description of the property sufficient for identification. It was noted that the plaintiff had adequately identified the land by its plot number, as per the records. The court also cited precedents discouraging remand of cases when evidence is sufficient for a final decision. Decision and Conclusion: The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in finding the disputed land as unidentifiable, especially when the plot number provided clear identification. The court reinstated the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing that the ownership and possession were adequately proven. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and affirming the trial court's decision. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
