Dismissed

Budheswar Hazarika v. Dinanath Hazarika

Gauhati HC11 Jun 2024RSA/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The Court held that the substantial question of law proposed by the appellant related to partition, which was not the subject matter of the original suit for declaration and recovery of possession. As the findings were concurrent and the issue was extraneous to the suit, no substantial question of law arose.

What the court decided

AI extract

Budheswar Hazarika Vs Dinanath Hazarika — Partition | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010041682024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : RSA/62/2024

¶5

BUDHESWAR HAZARIKA S/O LATE JUNARAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF SHAKRAHI GAON, MOUZA NARAYANPUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

DINANATH HAZARIKA S/O LATE JUNARAM HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF SHAKRAHI GAON, MOUZA NARAYANPUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

12.06.2024

¶13

Heard Shri NN Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant, who has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

against a judgment dated 14.12.2023 and decree dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Title Appeal No. 05/2019. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court had confirmed the judgment dated 06.08.2019 and decree dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in T.S. No. 10/2017.

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the said suit, the present appellant was the defendant which was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. It is submitted that the aforesaid relief was sought for on the basis of an order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Circle Officer by which the land in question was partitioned in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that in the said proceeding before the learned Circle Officer, no notice was issued to the appellant or the other siblings.

¶17

The learned counsel has accordingly proposed certain substantial question of law.

¶18

This Court has however noticed that the proposed substantial question of law is on the aspect of partition which is not even the subject matter of the suit. This Court has also noticed that there was no counter claim by the appellant as defendant with regard to the separate patta that was issued in favour of the plaintiff.

¶19

The findings under consideration being concurrent findings and the substantial question of law sought to be proposed by the appellant not being connected with the subject matter of dispute which was adjudicated by the Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in exercise of its powers under

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

Section 100 of the CPC.

¶22

6. Accordingly, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Budheswar Hazarika v. Dinanath Hazarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Budheswar Hazarika v. Dinanath Hazarika

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sambhu Baishya Vs Nirmal Talukdar and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Bhuban Chandra BORAHand 2 Ors.

Hira Das Vs on the Death of Lakhi Ch. Das Represented by Labanya Das and Ors.

Budheswar Hazarika Vs Dinanath Hazarika

Nilotpol Dey Vs Krishna Dey

Ismail Hoque Vs Jinnatara Begum and 3 Ors.