Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bhuglu Soren – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand represented by the Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal filed against lower court's judgment (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims of title and possession (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defendants’ objections and arguments on settlement (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. issues of minor's capacity and legal documentation (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. no substantial question of law found (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement and decree dated 27.06.2022 (Decree sealed & signed on 11.07.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No.17 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008 (Decree sealed & signed on 10.11.2008) passed by the learned Munsif, Seraikella in Title Suit No.43 of 1999 and Title Suit No.26/2007 whereby and whereunder the suit was dismissed on contest.
3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession of the same and also for injunction.
4. Arguments of the appellants.
a. Al
A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.
The court confirmed that adverse possession can secure title even against invalid transfer documents, provided uninterrupted possession exceeds 12 years and is public, emphasizing the significance of....
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 court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
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....
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
Possession follows title; a suit for declaration of title is maintainable despite claims of res judicata and adverse possession if the plaintiff proves ownership.
An entry in record-of-rights is a rebuttable presumption of ownership; without evidence of dispossession, legal claims rooted in such entries remain fortified.
The court affirmed that possession follows title, and a plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title even if a previous suit for injunction was dismissed due to lack of possession.
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
