Regular second appeal against concurrent findings in a pre-emption suit. The Court held there was no cogent evidence of any oral partition, which was also absent from revenue records, and that the right of pre-emption based on co-sharership existed when the 1988 decree was passed, being abolished only by the 1995 amendment. Appeal dismissed.
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.
Sarita Rani 2024.12.04 22:14 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA-1182-1991 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 162194
fact that no cogent evidence to show the said oral par��on was produced before the Courts below. No such par��on was reflected in the revenue record.
Consequently, present appeal is hereby dismissed.
Pending applica�on(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
| December 04, 2024 | (DEEPAK GUPTA) | |
|---|---|---|
| ������� | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned? | Yes | |
| Whether reportable? | No |
Sarita Rani 2024.12.04 22:14 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the pre-emption decree could be sustained given the absence of cogent evidence of an oral partition and the existence of the pre-emption right at the time of the 24.02.1988 decree?
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
