Back
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Shamshad Alam – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Shailendra Singh, J.—The instant First Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.03.2010 passed in the Title Suit No. 27 of 2001 by the learned trial court of Sub Judge-VII, Muzaffarpur by which the plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed on contest. The appellants were plaintiffs before the learned trial court whereas the sole respondent was the defendant. The plaintiffs filed their suit with a prayer to declare their title in the suit land. Here, it is important to mention that the respondent appeared before the learned trial court but failed to file written statement despite being given several opportunities by the learned trial court and finally, one more opportunity to file the written statement on the condition of payment of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) was granted but even then the cost was not deposited, so, the learned trial court did not take into account the written statement filed by the defendant at later stage and since there was no pleading of the defendant, so, the learned trial court did not frame issue. Further, the defendant did not give any oral or documentary evidence to disprove or rebut the plaintiffs’ pleadings and finally, both the parties were heard and
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is rebuttable, and mere possession does not confer title without proof of vendor's title.
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....
Property disputes require clear proof of title and possession; without these, claims may be barred by limitation and statutory provisions.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
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.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
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
