9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Plaintiff's claim for declaration of title and possession of suit land - Disputed possession of plot No. 731 - Request for remand for appointment of Commissioner Analysis: 1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession, or recovery of possession of 40 decimals of land in plot No. 731. The plaintiff claimed possession based on historical records and rent receipts, while the defendant disputed the plaintiff's possession and the relation of the disputed portion to plot 731. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the disputed area to be part of plot 731 and confirming the plaintiff's possession. However, the lower appellate court overturned this decision, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the disputed portion. The plaintiff relied on records and rent receipts, but they did not conclusively establish possession of the disputed area. 3. The plaintiff argued for a remand to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the location of the disputed land. However, the court rejected this request, citing that the plaintiff previously opposed the defendant's application for a Commissioner during the trial. The court emphasized that a remand should not be granted due to negligence or default by a party, and parties should produce all evidence during the trial without expecting a second chance on appeal. 4. The court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and ordering costs to be paid. The judgment highlighted the principle that cases should not be remanded solely because parties failed to present evidence effectively during the trial, emphasizing the importance of fair trial procedures and avoiding invitations to perjury.
|
