KHATIM REZA
Radhe Shyam Hajjam Son of Ram Kishore Hajjam – Appellant
Versus
Bechu Pal Son of Dhora Pal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KHATIM REZA, J.
Heard Mr Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr Ganpati Trivedi learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15/12/1999, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Kaimur, (Bhabua) whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 19-01-1994, passed by the learned Munsif, (Bhabua), in Title Suit No. 47/91.The plaintiffs had filed the Title Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land admeasuring 3 decimals towards North East, bearing Khata No. 76, Revisional Survey Plot No. 1271, Schedule-‘ka’ and also for injunction. The learned Trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation, but on facts, it has been held that as there was entry in the revisional survey in the name of defendants, then the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed Title Appeal bearing T.A. No. 12/94/47/96 befo
T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co.
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar
Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K
Somnath Burman Vs. Dr. S.P. Raju & Anr reported in (1969) 3 SCC 129
State of H. P. v. Keshav Ram reported in (1996) 11 SCC 257
Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186
Union of India & Ors. V. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.
Entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title; the right to sue arises from the threat of dispossession, and possessory title can be sufficient to establish ownership against all but t....
Entries in revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be confirmed through appropriate legal channels.
Possession of land, supported by historical rent receipts and acknowledgment by the ex-landlord, is sufficient to establish title, and municipal survey entries do not negate this title.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
The court held that the respondents established their title and possession over the suit land, dismissing the appellants' claims due to insufficient evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.