Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Bhim Mahto, son of late Dhani Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Dularchand Mahto, son of Etwari Mahto – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No.10 of 2018 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 83 of 1991 with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land, permanent injunction and consequential relief.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the original plaintiff was married to Dhani Mahto who was hereditary settled raiyat of village- Bhelwara. The General Manager, Wards & Encumbered Estate, Hazaribagh of Sikari Estate granted a patta in the name of the original plaintiff in respect of gairmajaruwa khas land measuring 2.20 acres. The original plaintiff deposited rent under the said patta from 1934 to 1953. The original plaintiff with huge investment got 0.06 acres of plot no. 858 amalgamated with adjoining plot no. 831 which she purchased along with other lands through sale deed dated 23.01
The plaintiff must prove their title in a private suit, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interfered with unless perverse.
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
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....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or irrational.
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
