Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Ishwar Mahto, S/o. Late Bodhan Yadav @ Badho Mahto @ Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o. Late Tapeshwar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15th March 2016 (decree sealed and signed on 31st March 2016) passed by learned District Judge-II, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 whereby the learned District Judge-II, Chatra has dismissed Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and affirmed the judgment dated 15th December 2012 and decree sealed and signed on 08th January 2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Chatra in Title Suit No. 27 of 2007.
3. The appellants were defendants in the suit before the learned trial Court.
4. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order 05th February2019 on the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the possession of the defendants have not ever been considered by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court?”
5. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 27 of 2007 for adjudication on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff also prayed that his possession over the suit land be confirmed. Alternatively, it was prayed by the plaintiff that if he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the plaintiff was found di
In appeals concerning land ownership, the appellate court must address possession issues; possession is presumed to follow title, and failure to consider this may constitute a serious procedural erro....
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show adverse possession, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the claim.
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
Possession under a contract is not permissive if occupant asserts ownership; adverse possession requires clear hostility, which was lacking in this case.
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
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
