Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA
Ram Prasad Das, Son of Late Bhauli Das – Appellant
Versus
Deebakar Das, son of Late Sukhdeo Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KHATIM REZA, J.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of reversal dated 12.10.1999, passed in Title Appeal No.52/1992 (Tr. No.3/1996) by the 4th Additional District Judge, Purnea, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1992, passed in Title Suit No.35/1990,by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Purnea whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs- appellants was decreed.
3. In the present Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:-
“(a) Whether the first appellate court was justified in not admitting the evidence regarding Municipal Survey Parcha which would have connected it with the old G.S. plots, and claimed as the suit plots as also regarding the amendment of the plaint with respect to the year of settlement ?
b) Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents even after holding that the plaintiffs-respondents were found to be in possession of their names were recorded in the Municipal Survey records of right in the column of
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.
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
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....
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
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.
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
