Back
KARDAK ETE
Kaliram Regon – Appellant
Versus
Anima Taying W/o Late Talom Tayeying – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2.
2. This first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908 read with Order XLI of CPC, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2015, passed by Additional District Judge, Pasighat, in PSG Title Suit No. 07/2012, by which, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been allowed and decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.
3. The father-in-law (since deceased) of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has initially filed Title suit on 07.05.1993 for declaration of title, ownership and interest in favour of the plaintiff of the land measuring 1(one) pura and 30 feet situated at village Tigra (Mirmir), Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, bounded by in the East- Land of the Tani Ering; in the West-Main Road; in the North- Land of Shri Kaliram Regon (appellant herein) and in the South- Road.
4. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the father-in-law of the plaintiff Lt. Tasing Taying on dated 29.07.1984 purchased a plot of land measuring 1(one) pura situated at Tigra (Mirmir) Pasighat a
The absence of documentary evidence undermines ownership claims, while valid sale deeds establish rightful ownership.
Plaintiff's subsisting title must be established to claim possession. Adverse possession claim requires fulfillment of specific requirements.
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate claims over the disputed land, a failure results in dismissal of appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ownership rights over land must be supported by valid evidence and in accordance with the provisions of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) A....
Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are binding unless demonstrated to be perverse; appeals under Section 100 cannot disturb established facts without substantial questio....
The validity of a sale deed must be upheld unless compelling evidence proves otherwise; adverse possession can extinguish previous ownership rights if established.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
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
