9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of a sale-deed and possession claim. 2. Interpretation of lease boundaries and land extent. 3. Application of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting a portion of the claim. Detailed Analysis: 1. The plaintiff sought a declaration of the void sale-deed dated 18th October 1901 and possession of the property mentioned in it. An alternative claim was made for possession of the land itself if not entitled to the buildings on it. The plaintiff also requested any other relief deemed just. The Court noted the history of the land lease dating back to the 1860s and the subsequent transfer of ownership leading to the current dispute. 2. Multiple issues were framed, including defining the leased land boundaries. However, during the trial, the plaintiff was unable to specify the exact boundaries beyond what was demised to the predecessor in title. Consequently, the Court directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to provide the necessary details. As the boundaries remained undefined, the Court found it challenging to grant the alternative relief sought by the plaintiff. The Court invoked Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject that part of the claim. Both lower Courts affirmed the permanent lease nature of the land and the buildings erected on it. 3. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that Section 54 did not warrant the rejection of a specific part of the claim but rather the entire plaint for non-compliance. The appellate Court agreed that the issues concerning the boundaries and the excess land sale needed determination. Therefore, the Court remanded these issues to the lower Court for further examination, directing the District Judge to gather relevant evidence from both parties. Upon receiving the findings, the parties were granted ten days to submit objections, ensuring a fair trial and resolution of the disputed issues.
|
