Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M. A. CHOWDHARY
Tara Wanti Wd/O Ram Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K through Chief Secretary, J&K Government, Jammu/ Srinagar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CSA No. 24/2005:
01. The Appellants have directed this Civil Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 10th of September, 2005 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Rajouri (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in Civil First Appeal No. 11/A titled ‘Tara Wanti & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.’, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 30th of May, 2002 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Nowshera (for short ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein titled ‘Tara Wanti & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.’, has been confirmed.
02. The factual matrix of the case is that the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein, in the year 1988, filed a Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Trial Court against the Defendants/ Respondents with respect to a piece of land measuring 08 Marlas comprised of Survey No. 85 situate at Qasba Bala, Nowshera, stating therein that the Defendants/ Respondents, without any right, title, claim or interest over the aforesaid 08 Marlas of land, tried to encroach upon the same by raising a boundary wall and covering the same.
03. The Defendants/ Respondents appeared before the Trial Court and filed their Writt
The courts upheld that mere revenue entries do not establish possession without challenge, and the doctrine of 'possession follows title' was not applicable in this case.
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
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.
In civil suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to substantiate claims of exclusive possession, especially when conflicting evidence exists, such as revenue records indicating joint possess....
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
The onus of proving exclusive possession after partition lies with the plaintiff, and findings must be based on evidence rather than conjectures and surmises.
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
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
