Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Mayar Uddin, S/o. Md. Idris Ali – Appellant
Versus
Nihar Ranjan Das, S/o. Late Smti Pritilata Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial overview of parties and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute over land ownership and rightful title claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal interpretation and evaluation of evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 26) |
| 4. conclusion about the sufficiency of evidence supporting ownership. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. final ruling and orders of the court. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Factual Matrix
Pritibala Das (sister) and
Nihar Ranjan Das (son),
Rinku Rani Das (daughter)
Sri Akhil Chandra Das,
Sri Paritosh Chandra Das,
Smt Sabita Rani Das
Smt Vijay Lakhi Das
3. A title suit was initiated by Uday Sankar Das who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in this appeal which was registered as TS No.625/2006 against Md. Mayar Uddin and Md Aftab Uddin and other defendants. This suit was decreed on contest with costs vide order dated 06.12.2008. An appeal was preferred against this judgment and order by the present appellants Md. Mayar Uddin and Md Aftab Uddin which are registered as Title Appeal No.2/2009 and this appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2012.
1. Whether the plaintiff could derive right, title and interest on the basis of Ext.- 2, i.e., the sale deed executed by Suc
Plaintiff proved ownership of contested land through valid sales despite challenges, underscoring importance of credible evidence in property disputes and limitations of revenue records as evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate claims over the disputed land, a failure results in dismissal of appeal.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of historical records, legal proceedings, and possession in determining right, title, and interest over properties.
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
