Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Shri Valley Refractories Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claims based on registered deed. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. necessity of proving vendor title; trial court's findings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. request for additional evidence not critical. (Para 6) |
| 4. defendant's failure to respond does not suffice. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. importance of date of knowledge for limitation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. judgment reserved; final arguments to be submitted. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was decided ex-parte. Neither the defendants filed their written statement nor they appeared in the case, nor they cross examined any of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He has submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of registered deed of sale executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed for declaration of title and also confirmation of possession and alternative prayer was also made that if the plaintiff is found dispossessed, he will be put in possession of the property.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the cause of action arose when an entry in record of righ
A plaintiff must present compelling evidence to rebut existing presumptions in property records; otherwise, a suit can be dismissed, especially when considering limitation laws.
The presumption of correctness of entries in the record of rights under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is rebuttable, and mere possession does not confer title without proof of vendor's title.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
The original sale deed must be produced to validate property claims; failure to do so leads to adverse inferences and dismissal of the suit.
Entries in revenue records create a presumption of ownership that must be rebutted by the opposing party; mere claims of adverse possession without supporting ownership evidence are insufficient.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
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
