Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
Moorti Sankat Mochan Balaji An – Appellant
Versus
Shri Gangaramji Cheritable Tru – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
1.The present civil regular first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Jhunjhunu (for short the ‘trial Court’) in civil suit No. 31/1995 titled as “Shri Gangaramji Charitable Trust Vs. So-called Moorti Sankat Mochan Balaji and Ors.” whereby the said court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’). S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 30/2009 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu, whereby the relief sought for by the plaintiffs for granting mesne profit has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the trial court for eviction, permanent injunction and for mesne profit against the defendants with the prayer that defendants be directed to handover the possession of the plot Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs as mentioned
Ownership of property must be established through documentary evidence, and claims of adverse possession require substantial proof to be valid.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
The court ruled that rightful ownership evidenced through proper documentation takes precedence over claims of adverse possession by the defendant regarding property allegedly belonging to a temple.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the conte....
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
