Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Gulab Datt Dubey, S/o. Late Kedarnath Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This Second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiff questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15-3- 2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 44-A/2010 by which learned lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described as per their description before the Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002.
3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 5.5.2016 on the following substantial questions of law :-
(I) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court is perverse since on the basis of settled possession the presumption of burden of proof of ownership shifted to the SECL which is denied the ownership by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act?
(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court without appre
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.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer 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.
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.
The burden of proof in title suits rests with the plaintiffs to establish a superior title; revenue entries are insufficient to confer ownership.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The court held that the respondents established their title and possession over the suit land, dismissing the appellants' claims due to insufficient evidence.
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
