Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that the disputed property was not identifiable and in not remitting the newly framed issue for evidence, thereby reversing the decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Analysis: The plaint described the suit property by its plot number in the Nagar Panchayat record, which was sufficient to identify immovable property under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The entry stood in the revenue record prior to the suit, so the property could not be treated as unidentifiable merely because its area or boundaries were not separately pleaded. The appellate court was not bound to remand the issue, since Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the appellate court to determine the matter finally where the existing evidence is sufficient, and Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 similarly permits determination of an issue on the record in appropriate cases. In the circumstances, the reversal of the trial court's findings on ownership and possession solely on the basis of alleged non-identifiability was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The lower appellate court erred in law, and the plaintiff's suit ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of non-identifiability or want of remand.