Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Jiban Chandra Modak S/o Late Suresh Chandra Modak – Appellant
Versus
Jayraj Das S/o Late Joygobinda Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for appeal under cpc (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. trial court's findings (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellate court's evidence scrutiny (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. no errors in the lower court's judgments (Para 15 , 17) |
| 5. proof of property's ownership and title (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.C. Chakravary for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. S.P. Choudhury for the respondent.
Factual Matrix
2. This appeal is preferred under Section 100 read with Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No.4/2013. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law;
“Whether the learned courts below had misread and misconstrued note No. 3 of exhibit-3 i.e. Jamabandi leading to incorrect finding of fact on issue No.5, which has vitiated the judgment and decree impugned herein on ground of perversity?”
3. The learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar, in Titl
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate claims over the disputed land, a failure results in dismissal of appeal.
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 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 appellate court cannot grant a declaration of title to a respondent in the absence of a filed counterclaim or specific prayer for such relief. Furthermore, secondary evidence and property document....
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
