Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Sk. Idrish – Appellant
Versus
Sk. Khoda Box – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. issues framed for determination by trial court. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. findings and reasoning of the trial court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties focusing on procedural aspects. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and decision of the court. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This is a defendant’s appeal against a reversing judgment. The judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bhadrak in Title Suit No.337 of 1990-I on 22.04.1997 followed by decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was reversed by judgment passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak on 28.10.1999 followed by decree in Title Appeal No.32 of 1997.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for declaration that defendants have no manner of right, title, interest over the same, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession, if found dispossessed, and for declaration that the Tenant Ledger (TL) and
Procedural irregularities in land settlement undermine title claims; civil courts can intervene if statutory processes lack compliance.
Civil Court can review procedural irregularities in tenure matters unless barred by specific statutory provisions, impacting tenant rights and land ownership claims.
Civil courts can intervene in administrative proceedings if natural justice principles are violated, regardless of statutory bars.
Civil courts can review statutory decisions where procedural irregularities, such as lack of notice, occur, reaffirming jurisdiction despite legislative bars.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
The claim of title by adverse possession cannot be raised as an alternative plea of occupancy rayat, and the requirements for the claim of title as an occupancy rayat and that of adverse possession a....
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
