Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Suit for possession and injunction - Land in question was an agricultural land qua which suit before Revenue Court for declaration of Khatedari rights had already been preferred by plaintiff and same is pending consideration - Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts - It..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 -- Second appeal - Decree for declaration and permanent injunction - Plaintiff filed the suit on basis of earlier judgment and decree of 1982 in which title of plaintiff was declared - Non-filing of execution proceedings qua said decree of 1982, defendants do not ipso facto become owners of suit property and same does not debar..........
Will -- Exclusion of daughter - Will is unregistered and only one attesting witness was examined who was related to testator and also participated in proceeding before revenue authorities for carrying out mutation in favour of defendant - Scribe of Will also not examined - Will discarded...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21, Rule 32 -- Execution - Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction - Executing Court has left everything to be decided by Nazir of Court without recording any finding as to whether JDs have encroached upon suit land after passing of decree - Without undertaking such an exercise, it was not open to executing Court to pass a direction to..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Ad interim injunction - Plaintiffs are admittedly co-sharers - Their possession is also established from revenue record and earlier litigation between predecessors of parties - Partition proceedings are going on - Till then plaintiffs have certainly a right to retain possession of suit land - Ad interim injunction rightly..........
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58 -- Limitation - Suit for declaration that two sale deeds are not binding upon plaintiff - Cause of action arose in 1988 when on basis of sale deeds defendant got his name mutated in revenue record - Said fact was admitted by plaintiffs themselves and they were aware of said fact from the year 1988 - Suit filed in the year 1999 is thus,..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 -- Res judicata - Proceedings under Land Revenue Code attained finality in the year 1991 and sale deed in question declared as fraudulent and benami in favour of plaintiff - However, question as to whether plaintiff was only ostensible owner and not beneficial owner could not have been gone into by Revenue Authorities - Since said..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9 -- Jurisdiction of civil Court - Barred by S.257 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code - Question whether purchase by a tribal was a sham and nominal transaction for benefit of a non-tribal, may not fall exclusively within jurisdiction of authorities - Civil suit for declaration of title is not barred...........
Agreement to sell -- Specific performance - No documentary evidence was submitted by plaintiff to show payment of sale consideration to predecessor of defendant - Oral evidence in this regard was self contradictory - More so, sale agreement was executed in 1987 and predecessor of defendant died in 1996 and thereafter suit was filed in the year 2004 - No evidence on record..........
Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(V)(I)(c) -- Court fee - Valuation of suit - Aspect of circle rate as notified by Collector of district cannot be a valid proposition for determining market value of a suit property, as such assessment is only for purposes of registration of deeds and imposing stamp duty by revenue authorities...........
