THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Uwendra Thapa @ Nordy, S/o Late Neel Kamal Thapa – Appellant
Versus
Tsewang Dorjee Rinzing, Son of Shri. Rinzing Lama – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
The learned District Judge vide the impugned judgment and decree declared the respondent no.1 (the plaintiff) the owner of the suit land and that he was in possession thereof, when admittedly, the suit land had not been transferred and mutated in the plaintiff's name. The suit land was admittedly owned by late Sarita Thapa – the mother of the appellant (the defendant no.1). The plaintiff had claimed to be the owner of the suit land based on an oral “family arrangement” between him and late Sarita Thapa, whereby he had lent Rs.4,00,000/- to her and she had handed over the original Sale Deed (exhibit-P6) of the suit land owned by her, to his wife.
2. The defendant no.1 is not satisfied with the impugned judgment. Mr. Tej Bahadur Thapa, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant no.1, has advanced extensive arguments both on facts and law. According to him, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. It is his case that the averments in the plaint are bereft of any documentary or unimpeachable oral evidence. The evidence led by the plaintiff is beyond the pleadings and contradictory thereto. The plaintiff has made improvements and embellishments to his case.
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Pankajakshy v. Devaki Ramakrishnan
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Another
Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley & others
Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & others
Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation
Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
Meharchand Das v. Lal Babu Siddique
Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v. Chandran
Venkataraja v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal
A plaintiff cannot establish ownership of immovable property without a registered deed, even if in physical possession, as per Sections 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 34 of the Specif....
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
Civil Law - Civil Suit - Seeks rejection of plaint - Restoration of possession - When and from whom plaintiff came into lawful possession of the property, and entitlement of plaintiff to restoration ....
Civil Law – Civil Suit - Unregistered agreement to sell – Maintainability of suit - When and from whom plaintiff came into lawful possession of property, and entitlement of plaintiff to restoration o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.