Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Md Main Uddin – Appellant
Versus
Jayanta Das, S/o. Late Jyotirmoy Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal No. 30/2008.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012, the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj (‘first appellate Court’, for short) had reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2008, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj (‘trial Court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 201/1997, whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
4. For the sake of convenience, and to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred to in the same status, as they appeared in the suit.
5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:
“The appellants herein, namely, Md. Main Uddin, Md. Armin Ali and Md. Makisur Rahman, as plaintiffs instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 201/1997, for declaration of rig
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
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.
The plaintiff established ownership and continuous possession of the land through valid documents and rectification, contrary to the lower appellate court's findings.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
The first appellate court's findings of fact are final unless found to be manifestly perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
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
