Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Musst Asia Khatun, W/o. Late Jamuddin – Appellant
Versus
Patrik Urang, S/o. Late Simon Urang – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr A Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in both the appeals and Ms P Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and Decree dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to the Learned First Appellate Court), in Title Appeal No. 4/2024, thereby confirming the judgment and decree, 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to as the Learned Trial Court), in Title Suit No. 39/2019. As both the appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 39 of 2019, and challenges the judgment and decree dated 01/08/2024, passed by the Learned First Appellate Court, both the appeals are taken up together to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”). For the purpose of ascertaining the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts,
To prove adverse possession, the claimant must establish possession adverse to the true owner, long and continuous possession known to the true owner, the date of possession, and open and undisturbed....
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show adverse possession, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the claim.
(1) Forfeiture of tenancy – It is defendants who had to prove forfeiture of tenancy prior to expiry of lease period.(2) Adverse Possession – By pleading adverse possession party seeks to defeat right....
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile intent and exclusive possession, which was not established in this case; mere possession or entries in revenue records do not suffice to claim ad....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
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.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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
