Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KALYAN RAI SURANA
Nazim Uddin S/o Late Sansher Ali – Appellant
Versus
Sahajan Ali – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. There is no representation from the respondents.
2. This appeal under section 100 CPC is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 30.05.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta in TA no.39/2004. By the said appellate judgment, the said appeal filed by the appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division) No.1, Barpeta in TS no.78/1999, thereby decreeing the suit, was affirmed.
3. The facts in brief is that the respondent nos.1 to 4 had filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, decree of recovery of khas possession by evicting the appellants from the suit land and another consequential reliefs. It was claimed that out of the Schedule-A land, the father of the respondent nos.1, 2, 3, who was also the husband of the respondent no.4, had purchased 2B-1K-5L land vide registered sale deed no.6892/77 dated 08.09.1977 from S
The non-delivery of possession does not affect the transfer of title, and lack of mutation in revenue records does not extinguish the title of the lawful purchaser.
Mutation or revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding liability to pay land tax or land revenue.
Title suit – Revenue entries do not decide issue of title in respect of property – In comprehensive suit, title of party has to be adjudicated based on title documents and not on basis of revenue rec....
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
Listen Article