Joint Ownership Dispute Over Land Ownership and Court Decision
Order 6. J. is the plaintiff; S. is the defendant. S. exited the land. The defendant contests the case that the disputed land is jointly owned by him and was not. N. and S. intruded upon the court, claiming that the land belongs to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant and his entourage to be evicted from the land. The plaintiff jointly sued J. as the defendant, alleging that he and S. were joint owners. Subsequently, N. and S. on the land in question requested the court to prohibit J. and the defendant from being involved with the disputed land. The initial court considered the case and found that the land was jointly owned by the defendants, ruling that J. and S. should not be involved with the disputed land. The court ruled that J. and S. should not as follows: It was observed that the initial court’s judgment in this case was correct or not. Please answer. S.’s contestation of the case in the previous case was the exercise of rights arising from ownership. When the court had finally adjudicated on the issue, it extended to all assets, according to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1359, which stipulates that ownership of assets is held in the previous case. Therefore, this was a claim for relief under the Thai Civil Procedure Act, Section 4, regarding the court’s judgment in this case was incorrect (referring to Judgment 643/2521). The defendant was sued in one civil case on the scheduled date and the court ordered .