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 :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Factual Matrix
This appeal is preferred by the appellants Md. Mayar Uddin and Md Aftab Uddin. The respondents were initially Uday Shankar Das, Rabindra Chandra Das, Smt Jhunu Bala Das, Smt Shefali Rani Das, Smt Dipali Rani Das and the proforma respondents were initially Smt Pritibala Das, Smt Kusumanjali Das, Sri Nani Gopal Das who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 8 respectively. On death of respondent No. 1 Uday Sankar Das, he has been substituted by his following legal heirs;
Pritibala Das (sister) and
Smt Kusumanjali Das (sister) who were initially arrayed as proforma respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and on death of Smt Pritibala Das, she has been substituted by her legal heirs
Nihar Ranjan Das (son),
Nilashish Das (son), and
Rinku Rani Das (daughter)
2. On death of re
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.
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
