Back
NELSON SAILO
R. Thasiama S/o Tlanglawma – Appellant
Versus
Challianchhingi D/o Thanthuama (L) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this First appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 6/2014, by which the Eviction Suit has been decided in favour of the present respondent and the instant appellant has been directed to demolish the Assam type building, garage and 4 (four) water tanks constructed beyond his LSC No. 203/1986 and vacate the occupation within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of order.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant has a plot of land covered by LSC No. Azl 203/1986, which is converted from a V.C Pass. The appellant also claims to have another plot of land adjacent to the said LSC covered by a V.C Pass dated 01.03.1971. The instant respondent, on the other hand, also possess a certain plot of land covered by LSC No. 103702/01/2188 of 2014 which is converted from House Pass No. 209/2003. Alleging that there are certain encroachment over his land, the appellant filed Declaratory Suit No. 5/2001 before the Court of Assist
The right to cross-examine is fundamental to a fair trial, and absence during critical evidence gathering necessitates remand for reconsideration.
Tenant cannot be evicted without the landlord proving lawful title, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interrupted unless perverse.
The main legal point established is that the evidence of property ownership, marriage legitimacy, and inheritance rights heavily influenced the court's decision in a property dispute case.
Point of law: “Any aggrieved party” the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proce....
In eviction suits, admitted landlord-tenant relationship estops tenant from denying title; landlord needs only prove relationship and grounds, not ownership. Open land leases not protected by rent co....
The court determined that disputes over land identity require adjudication by a Civil Court, emphasizing that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction over such matters.
The courts upheld that mere revenue entries do not establish possession without challenge, and the doctrine of 'possession follows title' was not applicable in this case.
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
Eviction Decree - Title defect - defendant’s challenge to the title of the landlord has little relevance and cannot be in any manner considered a factor that will defeat the case of the plaintiff.
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
