Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Abhishek Shah S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Shah – Appellant
Versus
Radhya Shyam Sarkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 51/2016.
2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.05.2022, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (‘first appellate Court’, for short) had allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (‘trial Court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 133/2009.
3. For the sake of convenience, and to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred to in the same status, as they appeared in the suit.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:-
“The appellant herein, namely, Sri Abhishek Shah as plaintiff, had instituted a suit against the defendant/respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Sri Radhya Shyam Sarkar, for declaration of plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit land
The plaintiff established ownership and continuous possession of the land through valid documents and rectification, contrary to the lower appellate court's findings.
The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.
Settlement record of rights does not extinguish prior title, and collusive judgments lack binding authority on necessary parties.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
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.
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....
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
