Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Santi Devi – Appellant
Versus
On the Death of Wallus Sahid his Legal Heirs Mahmuda Shahed W/o Walius Sahid – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6.
2. This Regular Second Appeal under Order 42 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 30/2014, whereby it upheld the Judgment and Decree passed in Title Suit No.402/2005 and dismissed the said appeal.
3. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had instituted a Title Suit No. 402/2005 against the present respondents (wherein the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are designated as defendants of Group- 1, and the heirs of the Defendant No. 5 are designated as defendants of Group-2).
4. The plaintiffs/appellants had pleaded that their father, Late Sardar Lohar was the tenant in respect of a plot of land measuring about 15 Kathas of land in Koraibari measurement under the Landlords namely, Smt. Nur Nehar Khatun and Smt. Hamida Khatun. It was also pleaded that later on, after abolition of zamindary, the aforesaid land was erroneousl
The court affirmed that concurrent findings of lower courts on issues of title and limitation are binding unless established as perverse, with the plaintiffs failing to provide necessary evidence.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
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.
In property disputes, admissions by the defendant regarding ownership can significantly influence the outcome, and the absence of documentary evidence does not necessarily bar a decree for eviction i....
A party's claim to land title cannot be dismissed merely based on the time of filing under statutory provisions, which must account for the merits of the case.
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
