Back
ANU MALHOTRA
Sarti Devi (Deceased) Represented through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Gurdwara Management Committee, Gurudwara Nanak Sar Thaat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The appellant vide this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908 as amended assails the findings of the learned trial Court in Suit No. M38/99 dated 25.02.2000 and also assails the judgment/decree dated 22.04.2017 of the First Appellate Court of the learned ADJ-02, West in RCA 1/17/91 whereby the appeal against the said judgment and counter objections in relation thereto were both dismissed.
2. The sole appellant now who was arrayed as plaintiff no.2 to the suit as initially instituted had filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs.17760/- on account of damages against defendant no.1, the Gurudwara Management Committee, Gurudwara Nanaksar Thath and against defendant no.2 Sant Baba Amar Singhji, President of the said Committee contending that the plaintiffs were owners of three bighas of land forming part of Khasra No.1673/1100, Khewat Jamabandi No.69/70, Khatauni No.189 in the revenue estate of village Bahapur, Delhi as per Settlement of 1949/1950 and that the defendants had illegally encroached upon the part of the said land measuring 2200 sq. yrds. in February, 1979 and had raised unauthorized construction of a gurudwara over the sa
Certified copy of Jamabandi entries admissible in evidence under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ownership claims must be supported by existing legal documentation while adherence to limitation statutes may limit recovery rights in possession suits.
Mere possession or sporadic revenue entries do not confer ownership title; clear documentation and continuous proof of possession is necessary, especially against government parties.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
The court upheld the plaintiffs' rights over the disputed land, validating their claims against the encroachment by the defendants and confirming the trial court's judgment.
The importance of establishing right, title, and interest in a property through evidence and the finality of judgments in previous legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that established decrees must be honored and that non-compliance with prior court orders can invalidate claims to retain possession of property.
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
