Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Kaushik Kumar Katta, S/o Shri Kishore Kumar Katta – Appellant
Versus
Madhukar Rao Dani (Died) Through Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006 passed by learned 10th Additional District Judge, (FTC) Raipur in Civil Suit No. 102-A of 2004, by which the trial Court has allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and declared the sale deed dated 16.02.2004 executed in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their description in Civil Suit No. 102-A/2004.
3. Brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court mainly contending that;
(a) That from genealogy of the family as mentioned in the plaint, it is quite vivid, that Gangaji was the forefather of the plaintiff and he has two sons namely Ramchandra and Chhatroba. Ramchandra has one son Ganpatrao who has one son Baburao and Baburaon has one son Ganpartro Dani. Ganpartrao Dani has two sons namely Balasahab/defendant No.2 and Chandrakant/defendant No.3. Similarly, Chhatroba has three sons Narayan Rao, Keshav Rao and Nathoba. Narayan Rao has one son Viththalrao. Viththalrao ha
Establishment of easementary rights requires substantiation through historical use or necessity; bona fide purchasers must prove good faith and due diligence.
Denial of easementary rights - plaintiffs having failed to seek the relief of declaration of their alleged easementary right, on that score, the plaintiffs suit has to fail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of tenancy created by a sale deed and the right of survivorship cannot be examined as substantial questions of law in the absence o....
Where Easement Act inapplicable, easement rights governed by justice, equity, good conscience; right by gift deed extinguished by changed circumstances providing independent access and causing servie....
The plaintiff failed to prove ancestral property claims, leading to the dismissal of the partition suit and the recognition of the defendant's legal ownership.
Ownership rights cannot exceed what is originally conveyed in property transactions, substantiating claims requires clear and convincing evidence.
Easementary rights must be evidenced by uninterrupted and peaceable enjoyment for twenty years, as per Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, to be enforceable.
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
