Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Raghunandan Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The appellants/appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.03.2019 and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.34/2015 dismissing the said appeal and affirming the judgment dated 16.09.2015 and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Giridih in Title Suit No.159/2000.
3. The appellants/plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration of their title over the suit land more specifically described in the schedule of the plaint and also for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. They also prayed that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Giridih in Revision Case No.1/1999-2000 be declared as illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.
4. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court was as under:
[The court established that land declared as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act cannot be claimed by individuals without valid title, and that any prior claims based on unregistered documen....
Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding and the DCLR has no jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi.
The continuous possession, mutation of property, and payment of taxes and rent receipts were considered as evidence of the trust's title and possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the probative value of the Gazette Notification under the Forest Act and the implications of the bar on entertaining suits during the notification ....
Orders concerning land ownership must adhere to procedural integrity and jurisdictional authority, especially in cases involving alleged fraud and non-disclosure of material facts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff was not required to ask for possession when the property was in custodia legis, and the defendants had acquired title by adverse....
The plea of adverse possession is not consistent with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed. The weakness of the defendant's witness cannot be a ground for reversing the findi....
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
