Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J
Biswajit Dutta, S/o Sri Bidhu Dutta – Appellant
Versus
On The Death of Sri Lengru Rajgorh His Legal Heir Sri Raj Rajgorh(Son) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
2. The appellant as plaintiff has preferred this appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter CPC) against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in T.A No. 4/2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Tinsukia in T.S No.47/2014.
3. The appellant being the plaintiff filed a title suit before the Court of Munsiff, Tinsukia vide T.S No.47/2014. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the plaintiff is in absolute possession in respect of 2 Bighas 2 Kathas of land covered by Dag No.109 and 110 of Touzi Patta No.43 situated at Monkhuli Gaon, Mouza- Tipling since 2007 and he was having his cultivation over the said land. He used to pay land revenue regularly for the said land. The respondents/defendants are his neighbors and they tried to disturb his peaceful possession over the said land.
4. On 22.04.2014, at around 2 PM, the respondents/defendants armed with weapons like spears, daos, etc. entered int
Possession of government land without legal settlement does not confer rights; mere payment of revenue is insufficient for title.
Mere possession does not confer possessory title; non-joinder of the true owner is grounds for dismissal.
In property disputes where neither party has a valid title, the person in prior possession is entitled to recover possession, and a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable even if the title i....
The High Court affirmed that findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are binding unless substantial questions of law arise, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
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.
Title – Weakness in defendant’s claim for title to property cannot establish plaintiff’s title.
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
