TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds plaintiff's cause of action, affirms entitlement to possession and damages</h1> <h3>Dwijendra Narain Roy Versus Joges Chandra De and Ors.</h3> The court confirmed the plaintiff's valid cause of action against Defendant No. 1 based on executed pattas. The suit was found maintainable, not barred ... - Issues Involved:1. Cause of action against Defendant No. 1.2. Suit barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.3. Doctrine of lis pendens affecting the settlement between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2.4. Maintainability of the suit as per Defendant No. 1's written statement.5. Findings from previous litigation and their jurisdictional validity.6. Genuineness and execution of the four pattas and allegations of fraudulent alterations.8. Entitlement to separate sets of Jamas based on the pattas.9. Inclusion of Debuttar Lakheraj lands in the patni and its legality.10. Alleged collusion between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2.11. Plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession.12. Plaintiff's entitlement to mesne profits and damages.13. Limitation on the claim for mesne profits.14. Amendment of Defendant No. 1's written statement.15. Legality of Defendant No. 1's written statement.Detailed Analysis:1. Cause of Action Against Defendant No. 1:The court found that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action against Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's claim was based on the four pattas executed on January 17, 1913, which were later registered on June 22, 1918, following a decree from the High Court.2. Suit Barred Under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act:The court did not find the suit barred under Order 2, Rule 2, or Section 42. The plaintiff's claim for possession and mesne profits was distinct from the earlier suit for enforcing registration under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act.3. Doctrine of Lis Pendens:The court held that the settlement made by Defendant No. 1 with Defendant No. 2 was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The leases executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 during the pendency of the earlier litigation were not valid against the plaintiff's title.4. Maintainability of the Suit:The suit was found maintainable. The court rejected Defendant No. 1's plea that the plaintiff had fraudulently altered the leases, as these issues had been conclusively decided in the previous litigation.5. Findings from Previous Litigation:The court upheld the findings from the previous litigation, stating that the decision was conclusive in establishing that there were no alterations in the leases and that they were genuine documents executed by Defendant No. 1. The principle of res judicata applied, preventing re-litigation of these issues.6. Genuineness and Execution of the Four Pattas:The court confirmed the genuineness and proper execution of the four pattas. The previous litigation had already determined that the documents were executed as per the contract and were not tampered with after execution.8. Entitlement to Separate Sets of Jamas:The court left the issue of separate sets of Jamas to be determined during the assessment of mesne profits. The Subordinate Judge was instructed to ascertain the true construction of the four pattas and their legal effect.9. Inclusion of Debuttar Lakheraj Lands:The court found that the inclusion of Debuttar Lakheraj lands within the patni granted to the plaintiff was not fraudulent or illegal. Defendant No. 1's contention on this matter was dismissed.10. Alleged Collusion:The court found no evidence of collusion between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 in withholding rents or keeping the plaintiff out of possession.11. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Recover Possession:The court affirmed the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the disputed properties based on the four pattas.12. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Mesne Profits:The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits and damages from Defendant No. 1 from January 17, 1913, to June 9, 1922, and from both defendants from June 10, 1922, to the date of possession or three years from the decree, whichever occurred first.13. Limitation on the Claim for Mesne Profits:The court ruled that the claim for mesne profits was not barred by limitation. The right to mesne profits accrued from the date of registration of the leases (June 22, 1918), and the suit was filed within three years from that date.14. Amendment of Defendant No. 1's Written Statement:The court allowed the amendment of Defendant No. 1's written statement but found no merit in the new grounds of attack, which contradicted the previous litigation's findings.15. Legality of Defendant No. 1's Written Statement:The court found the written statement legally framed and not liable to be rejected.Conclusion:The court confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge with an amendment regarding the termination of liability for mesne profits on November 11, 1921, due to the appointment of a receiver. Both appeals were dismissed with costs in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
