Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Sirajul Islam S/o Late Sadar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Firoza Begum D/o Late Lagima Begum – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.J. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 passed in Title Appeal No. 73/2016 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the appeal was allowed thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. For the purpose of adjudicating as to whether there was any jurisdictional error or the learned First Appellate Court had exercised jurisdiction illegally as well as with material irregularity, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant application.
4. The predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent herein one Lajima Begum (since deceased) vide a registered Sale Deed No. 9414/07 dated 24.07.2007 purchased a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Dag No. 1192 of K.P. Patta No. 187 of Village Dehan Garigaon under Mouza Jalukbari in the District of Kamrup along wi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving title and interest in property disputes, and the significance of challenging relevant documents in a timely manner.
The validity of a sale deed confers title to the purchaser, and claims of permissive occupation by defendants do not negate this ownership.
The burden of proof regarding alleged fraudulent deeds lies with the party alleging fraud, as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The sufficiency of unchallenged documentary evidence for establishing title and ownership is critical in property disputes.
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
A second appeal under CPC does not warrant interference when no substantial question of law arises, affirming the necessity of establishing ownership before claiming possession.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.
The court affirmed that sales executed post the donor’s death under a void Power of Attorney are invalid, entitling heirs to recover possession.
Registered Power of Attorney presumed valid under S.114(e) Evidence Act unless fraud specifically pleaded and proved; lack of Tamil literacy and attesting witness ignorance insufficient to invalidate....
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
