Back
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Krishna Bahadur Chettri S/o Late Harka Bahadur Chettri – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Mandir Committee Represented by its President, R/o Kerabari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of suit and relief claimed by plaintiffs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defendant's plea of exclusive ownership and alienation. (Para 6) |
| 3. presentation and reliability of evidence by parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. appellate evaluation of evidence and document authenticity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. failure of claim and limits of court-granted declaration. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. Krishna Bahadur Chettri and five others (the appellants) have preferred a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The provision reflects that an appeal shall lie to this Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is “satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law”.
3. The sole respondent is Rameshwar Mandir Committee represented by its President. The appellants had filed a declaratory suit No.18 of 2016 (the suit) against the respondent. For the purpose of this appeal the parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendant hereinafter.
4. The plaintiffs’ case in short wa
An appellate court cannot grant a declaration of title to a respondent in the absence of a filed counterclaim or specific prayer for such relief. Furthermore, secondary evidence and property document....
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate claims over the disputed land, a failure results in dismissal of appeal.
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.
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
