Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.Behera
State of Orissa, through Collector, Cuttack – Appellant
Versus
Jutika Dei – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of tenancy and possession under estate abolition. (Para 11 , 12 , 20) |
| 2. final ruling on injunction based on possession without denying occupancy title. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 and the respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1987.
3. The respondent in this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 and the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.05 of 1987.
4. The case of the plaintiff(respondent in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.49 of 1985 against the defendants, i.e., against the State and the Tahasildar, Marsaghai as per the averments made in her plaint in a nutshell was that, the suit properties described in schedule of the plaint under Khata No.61, Plot No.116 Ac.1.50 decimals in Mouza-Mahakalpada in the district of Kendrapara were under the ex-intermediary estate of the ex-landlord called as Burdh
Possession does not establish title; limited injunction against dispossession without due process granted.
Claims of occupancy rights and adverse possession cannot coexist; an encroacher is not entitled to injunctive relief against the rightful owner.
Claims of title through documentation cannot coexist with claims of adverse possession; a plaintiff must provide consistent and sufficient evidence to establish ownership.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires the possessor to deny the title of the true owner, and without such denial, adverse possession cannot be establ....
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's title.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
The plaintiff's request for permanent injunction was denied as he failed to prove adverse possession and the defendant was adjudged the lawful owner of the disputed land.
Continuous possession must be proven to obtain an injunction; mere revenue entries are not conclusive if rebutted by evidence.
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
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
