IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bhartiya Jeevan Beema Nigam Mandal Karyalaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeals (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defendants' arguments (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. plaintiff's arguments (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. analysis of possession (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. possession asserts ownership; clear evidence precondition to claim validity. (Para 43) |
| 6. limitations on suit claims (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 74) |
| 7. jurisdictional challenges elucidate procedural mandate necessity for valid claims. (Para 80 , 81) |
| 8. final judgment and decree (Para 102 , 103) |
JUDGMENT :
(SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.)
Background of the Appeals
1. First Appeal No. 45 of 2007 has been filed by the appellants— Defendants No. 6, 7, and 8—while First Appeal No. 71 of 2007 has been preferred by the appellant–Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). Both appeals challenge the judgment and decree dated November 21, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh, in Suit No. 1210 of 2004. By this judgment, the trial court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff–LIC, declaring the sale deed dated September 23, 2000, executed in favor of Defendants No. 6 to 8, void and ineffective to the extent of 550 square yards.
2. First Appeal

Rishikesh v. Harikesh and Others
Vasantha (Dead) through L.R. v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) through L.Rs.
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust Virudhunagar Vs Chandran and others
M. K. Rappai and Others Vs John and Others
Ram Saran and Another Vs Smt Ganga Devi
Meharchand Das s Lal Babu Siddique and others
Union of India Vs Ibrahim Uddin and another
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors.
Meharchand Das Vs Lal Babu Siddique and others
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors.
Property disputes require clear proof of title and possession; without these, claims may be barred by limitation and statutory provisions.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
A suit for declaration of title without seeking possession is not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act.
The court held that a suit for declaration of ownership of property is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the plaintiff is able to prove that he/she was not dispossessed of....
A permanent injunction cannot be granted in a property dispute without a clear determination of the title to the property, especially when the claimant's possession is based on an unregistered agreem....
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
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.