Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Sandeswari Medhi D/o Late Lukum Medhi – Appellant
Versus
Rampal Roy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 2/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as, the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 55/2006 was reversed. It is relevant to take note of that vide an order dated 16.07.2008, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the instant appeal by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law which reads as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, title and interest on the basis of Ext. 1 (Regd. Sale deed) and Ext. 3 (patta), which were neither challenged by the defendants nor were cancelled by any competent Civil Court?
2. Whether the plaintiff is legally bound to prove Ext.
The sufficiency of unchallenged documentary evidence for establishing title and ownership is critical in property disputes.
The validity of a sale deed confers title to the purchaser, and claims of permissive occupation by defendants do not negate this ownership.
The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff proved his title and possession over the suit land, emphasizing that factual determinations cannot be disturbed without evidence of perv....
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.
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....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish exclusive and absolute rights over the suit land, and the court may remand a matter for fresh consideration and permit the parties to adduce add....
The plaintiff must prove ownership and continuous possession of the land, maintaining the burden of proof to establish title in her favor.
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.
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
