Back
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS
Swapan Kumar Majhi – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Chandra Majhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH TANDON, J.
1. An instant appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghatal in title suit no. 29 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the suit was decreed on contest declaring that the plaintiff/respondent has 1/3rd share and the defendants therein are the owner to the extent of undivided 2/3rd share in respect of the suit property and further directed to the parties to make an amicable partition by metes and bounds within a stipulated time.
2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration of their share to the extent of 1/3rd in respect of the subject property and separation thereof by partition to be divided by metes and bounds. The undisputed facts unfold from the record is that one Kartick Majhi, Avay Majhi and Gopal Majhi jointly owned 1/3rd share (5 Anna 6 Gonda 2 Kora 2 Kranti) of the suit property and the rest of the suit property i.e. 2/3rd share (10 Anna 13 Gonda 1 Kora 1 Kranti) are owned and possessed by Khetra Majhi and Mahendra Majhi. The plaintiff/respondent claimed title through the owners of 1/3rd share and the defendants/appellants are claiming their right, title and interest
The mere entry in the record of rights in favor of a party does not conclusively establish their title, as the presumption of accuracy of such entries is rebuttable by evidence. The party asserting t....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the validity and authenticity of mutation entries, the burden of proof regarding partition deeds, and the rebuttal of presumptions based on revenue r....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principle that mutation does not confer title and a co-sharer cannot relinquish their right without executing a relinquishment deed.
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
Possession by one co-owner is not adverse without clear ouster; revenue records do not confer title.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
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
