Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J
Kishan Maharaj @ Krishna Prasad Giri, Son Of Late Murlidhar Giri – Appellant
Versus
Rakhohari Goswami, Son Of Late Ram Bhushan Goswami – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is present.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was decreed under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) but the learned Court has not considered the fact that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the defendant was in possession of the property since 1991. The learned counsel submits that the defendant being in possession of the property since 08.08.1991, the suit for recovery of possession was barred by the law of limitation and the learned Court did not frame any issue on the point of limitation.
4. The learned trial Court took only one question for determination i.e., as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for any relief. The learned trial Court considered the materials on record and held that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in connection with Khata No. 54, CS Plot No. 660, R.S. Plot No. 1301 area 09 decimals. The learned trial Court has also set-aside the sale-deed bearing no.7226 dated 17.08.2006 and held that the
The courts must consider limitation in property disputes and grant relief strictly within the scope of the plaintiff's claims.
A suit based on title for recovery of possession is not subject to limitation, and adverse possession must be pleaded and proved with particulars to affect the limitation period.
It is settled law that while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., defence is immaterial and Court has to only look into averments of plaint and application cannot be dec....
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC should be drafted with clarity and simplicity, and the court can dismiss a suit if it concludes that, based on the averments of the plaint, the suit is ba....
An undivided owner's possession of property cannot be transferred without proper authority, and actions for cancellation of disputed sales are valid within three years from knowledge of the sale's ex....
A claim of adverse possession fails if the continuity of possession is disrupted by lawful eviction, and the executing court lacks jurisdiction to decide title issues when eviction proceedings are pe....
The original sale deed must be produced to validate property claims; failure to do so leads to adverse inferences and dismissal of the suit.
The court affirmed that subsequent sales by a seller do not confer title if the original purchaser's rights were validly established prior.
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
