Kamini Devi vs Bhesh Bahadur Puri
2023 Latest Caselaw 929 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010048582023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                   Case No. : RSA/32/2023

            KAMINI DEVI
            W/O PUNIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF LAHORIJAN NEAR IB BUNGLOW, PO
            AND PS KHATKHATI, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM 782480

            VERSUS

            BHESH BAHADUR PURI
            W/O LATE CHABI LAL PURI, RESIDENT OF LAHORIJAN NEAR IB
            BUNGLOW, PO AND PS KHATKHATI, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
            782480



Advocate for the Petitioner   : R A RONGMEI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M P SARMA




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 10.03.2023 Heard Mr. R. A. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.01.2023 passed in Title Appeal No. 07/2022 by the Court Civil Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon examination of the Judgments of the Court of Munsiff as well as the Judgment rendered in Page No.# 2/2

the Title Appeal No. 07/2022, this Court is of the view that this appeal can be admitted on the following question of law:-

i. Whether the First Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam) was right in reversing the issue No. 5 when the finding of the Ld. Munsiff Civil Judge, Junior Division Diphu, Karbi Anglong of the issue Nos. 1 to 4 have been confirmed as issue No. 5 is subject to the findings of issue Nos. 1 to 4?

ii. Whether the purchaser of an immoveable property is entitled to a decree for possession when sale has been confirmed and also admitted by the vendor but the vendor having found to be possession?

iii. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that there is no prayer for recovery of possession when there is prayer for Decree for possession of the suit land in the plaint?

Any other question of law which may arise during the course of the hearing of the appeal may also be framed by the Court at the time of hearing.

Let the records of Title Appeal No. 07/2022 along with the records of T.S. No. 06/2004 be called for. Meanwhile, let notices be issued on the sole respondent. Dasti is also permitted.

Let the steps be taken within one week from today and the appeal be listed after receipt of the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant