Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 216

G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Amiya Bala Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Mukud Adhikari – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.K. Bhattacharya, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The lower appellate Court relied on mutation entries and Jamabandi to hold title in equal shares; High Court refused interference in second appeal. (!) (!) - Jamabandi and entries in the record of rights can be rebuttable and do not by themselves prove title; possession and long-time enjoyment support title when entries show joint ownership. (!) (!) - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate Court’s finding on title as based on correct appreciation of evidence; framed question as substantial or not, and found no error warranting interference. (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of interference in a second appeal under Section 100(1) CPC when the lower appellate court reversed a dismissal based on mutation entries and other evidence?

What is the proper evidentiary consideration for title in a suit for declaration and possession when Jamabandi entries show joint ownership and are rebuttable?

What constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100(1) CPC in a second appeal from a factual finding on title?

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.7.1998 of the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as "the lower appellate Court") in a suit filed by Balindra Narayan Adhikari (predecessor of the Respondents) for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property i.e., land measuring OB-2K-10L situated at Sorbhog town under Domoka Saka Bousi Mouza.

2. The suit was dismissed by learned Munsif, Barpeta (hereinafter described as "the trial Court") on the ground that the Plaintiff had not produced any document to prove his title and the entries made in revenue records were not sufficient for declaring him as owner of the suit property.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, the Plaintiff and the Defendant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. After analysing the pleadings and the documents produced by the parties, the lower appellate Court held that the Plaintiff-Respondents have been able to prove their title. The lower appellate Court noted that as per the certified c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 216

G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULYAmiya Bala Dutta – AppellantVersusMukud Adhikari – Respondent

What is the scope of interference in a second appeal under Section 100(1) CPC when the lower appellate court reversed a dismissal based on mutation entries and other evidence?

What is the proper evidentiary consideration for title in a suit for declaration and possession when Jamabandi entries show joint ownership and are rebuttable?

What constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100(1) CPC in a second appeal from a factual finding on title?

G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Amiya Bala Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Mukud Adhikari – Respondent