Back
ARINDAM SINHA, SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Shankar Dhibar – Appellant
Versus
Bangshi Dhibar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sugato Majumdar, J.
1. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants and submits, though the appeal was heard in relation to its admission, on 30th September, 2021, thereafter he received information that appellant no.5 and respondent no. 1 died respectively on 23rd August, 2021 and 30th October, 2020. He submits further, he has not been able to locate any authority that bars a Court from deciding on claims of title in absence of title documents. We have heard this submission of Mr. Bhattacharya. We are of considered opinion that fate of admission hearing of the instant second appeal would in no way impair or prejudice the interests of the parties or persons claiming under them, since we are of the view no question of law is involved in the appeal. We give below reasons for our view.
2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the appellate judgment and decree dated 12.03.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 119of 2013 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Purulia, whereby, the Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and passed decree of declaration of title and possession of the responde
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to substantiate their claims with valid evidence, as mere possession or revenue entries are insufficient to establish title.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate ownership with clear evidence; mere possession is inadequate for claims. Title must be proven, not presumed.
Entries in revenue records create a presumption of ownership that must be rebutted by the opposing party; mere claims of adverse possession without supporting ownership evidence are insufficient.
The court held that revenue records can establish possessory title if they show consistent family lineage, despite the lack of formal title deeds.
Revenue records do not establish ownership; the burden of proving title lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide valid documentation leads to resolution against the claim.
Possession as a caretaker on behalf of the owner does not amount to adverse possession, and the plaintiff must prove continuous and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period to claim prescrip....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must establish title through evidence, and prior possession alone does not suffice without proof of title.
Possession follows title; documentary evidence prevails over oral testimony in establishing property rights.
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
