C.M.P. No.1211 of 2018 challenges an order dismissing an appeal regarding a land dispute where the respondent purchased specific boundary land prior to the appellants' purchase. The court found the appellate court's reasoning adequate under Article 227.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P. No.1211 of 2018
This petition challenges the order dated 2.5.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadrak, in F.A.O. No.53 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirming the order dated 22.9.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basudevpur, Bhadrak, in I.A. No.104 of 2017 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.
Learned appellate court while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has assigned the following reasons:
“In fact, the Respondent purchased the land in the year 2002 with specific boundary which is apparent from the sale deed filed in this case. She has also mutated her name and separate plot was carved out from the original plot, for which, she is paying rent. Her claim is confined to her purchased land. The dispute arose among the parties when the present Appellants purchased Ac.0.03 dec. of land from the other recorded tenants with different boundary. It is not known whether there was any physical division of the suit plot at the spot in any partition among the vendors of the parties. The same would be considered in the suit. The vendors of the present Appellants did not raise any objection when the Respondent mutated her name in respect of ac.0.09 dec. of land, for which separate R.O.R. was prepared in her name. During pendency of the suit, they have no right to create any disturbance in the purchased land of the Respondent which is separately recorded as mutation plot No.2267/3009. ”
uks
2
The reason assigned by the learned appellate court cannot be said to be perfunctory or illegal warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition is dismissed.
…………………. Dr.A.K. Rath, J.
3
BK B
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference of the Superior Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was warranted against the Appellate Court's dismissal of the appeal.
Whether the Appellate Court's reason assignment was perfunctory or illegal.
Petitioners
Respondent
Dr. A. K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
