Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Kulwa Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bishwanath Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Baban Prasad, Mr. Praveen Kumar Verma, Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha and Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by Mr. K.K. Ambastha and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in T.A. No.20 of 1999 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1999 (decree sealed and signed on 17.05.1999) passed by the learned Sub-Judge No.1, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.89/1988, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents/ appellants.
3. Title Suit No.89/1988 was instituted by the appellants herein for declaration of land detailed in Schedule-B of the plaint, which are occupancy raiyati land of the plaintiffs, acquired by virtue of settlement and also for declaration that the orders of L.R.D.C. dated 22.09.1981 and order of C.O., Panki for staying the order dated 16.02.1981 passed in Misc. Case No.01/1977-78 are without jurisdiction and void and do not affect i
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....
The BPPHT Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, bar civil suits challenging settlement orders unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are proven, emphasizing the finality of administrative decisio....
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....
Possession established through reclamation under the C.N.T. Act is valid if supported by evidence of landlord consent, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
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....
Adverse Possession – When a possession is sought on the ground of Sada-deed of Dar Raiyat, law of adverse possession is not available.
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
