Back
C M JOSHI
Abhimannu – Appellant
Versus
Gayatri – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C M Joshi, J.
The LRs of the defendant No. 1 in O.S.No.102/2001 are before this Court in second appeal challenging the divergent finding of the first appellate Court in R.A.No.4/2011 dated 24.01.2013 whereby the suit came to be decreed are before this Court.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as below:
The court affirmed that ownership of immovable property can be established through registered sale deeds and municipal records, and clarified the applicable limitation period for possession claims.
A property title can be established through continuous possession and municipal records, even without formal titles, emphasizing the rules of inheritance and evidence in property disputes.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must establish title through evidence, and prior possession alone does not suffice without proof of title.
Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of host....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
