Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a property claim involving the appellants and respondents, who are descendants of a common ancestor, Pusau. The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding Plot No. 138/6, having previously disposed of another plot. Both lower courts found that the plot in question was never allotted to the appellants during the partition. The appellants attempted to substantiate their claim with documents, but the courts determined that these documents were subject to interpolation. Furthermore, it was established that the respondents were in possession of the plot. The High Court concluded that the issues raised were factual in nature and did not present a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings, dismissing the appeal without costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title Declaration - Claim of Title Based on Partition - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The appellants sought declaration of title over a plot based on alleged allotment in partition, which was found to be unsupported by evidence. The courts below concluded that the appellants were never allotted the plot and were not in possession, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Held that no substantial question of law arose (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were entitled to the plot in question based on the partition documents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's finding that no substantial question of law was involved and that the issues were purely factual.
Law Points
- Partition
- Title Declaration
- Permanent Injunction
- Possession
- Interpolation in Deed
- Concurrent Findings
- Section 100 CPC
