Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan
Shri Pinaki Prasad Biswas And Ors. S/o Late Biren Chandra Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Smti. Mandira Danda And Ors. W/o Late Mridul Kanti Danda – Respondent
JUDGEMENT & ORDER :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D.Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the C.P.C., the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Nagaon (‘first appellate court’, for short), in Title Appeal No. 11/2016.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.2019, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon (‘trial court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 49/2005, where by the suit filed by the appellants herein for declaration of right, title and interest over 3/6th share in the suit land and the houses standing over there as described in Schedule A and also 3/6th share of rent of the houses receivable from the tenants and a preliminary decree for directing the principal defendant Nos. 1 – 10 to effect partition of the appellants share of land and houses and delivery of possession of the same
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, and mere entries in records do not confer ownership without supporting evidence.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.
Plaintiffs in a title suit must prove their ownership to succeed, independent of the defendants’ claims. Failure to provide adequate evidence results in dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiff established ownership and continuous possession of the land through valid documents and rectification, contrary to the lower appellate court's findings.
The presumption of joint family property necessitates proof of individual ownership; without such proof, a child has a right to claim share in ancestral property.
The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact until it is discharged, and no party can travel beyond its pleading.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
The first appellate court's findings of fact are final unless found to be manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
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
