Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, KULDEEP MATHUR
LRs. of Mangal Das through Smt. Bhanwari Bai – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. The present special appeal is directed against order dated 06.07.2001 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2286/2001 (Mangal Das and Others vs. Board of Revenue and Others), whereby the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur as affirmed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide judgment dated 18.01.2001, by restoring judgment dated 25.11.1991, passed by Assistant Collector, Desuri declaring the property in dispute to be a Joint Hindu family ancestral property, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit under Sections 53, 88, 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before Assistant Collector, Desuri stating inter-alia, that Khasra No. 97 admeasuring 19 bighas and 16 biswas, Khasra No. 98 ad-measuring 5 bighas 1 biswa and Khasra No. 171 ad-measuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas, measuring a total of 39 bighas and 1 biswa, situated at Chak No. 1, village Nadol, belongs to the Joint Family of Late Shri Birad Das and his three sons namely, Ganesh Das, Gheesu Das and Mangi Das. In the
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving joint ownership of ancestral property lies with the claimant, and such burden cannot be discharged solely by oral eviden....
Co-sharers in ancestral property retain their rights despite lack of possession; adverse possession cannot extinguish these rights.
Jamabandi are only for fiscal purposes and no ownership is conferred on basis of entries.
Ownership rights cannot be established solely through revenue records; proper evidence of joint tenancy is required.
The presumption of joint family property does not arise solely from the existence of a joint family; the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that property was acquired from joint family....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting property as Joint Hindu Family property, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are ....
Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property claims.
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
