Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Vijay Kumar Bargava – Appellant
Versus
Agrawal Suritee Pracharni Sabha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Sudhanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No. 1124 of 2006 claiming a decree for declaration that he should be held and declared to be absolute owner in occupation of the suit property after holding the defendant having no right, title and interest therein. The property was described as bearing Municipal No. 5235 (6 to 11) old and new number 21/142/6 to 11 shown by letters A, B, C, D, E, F and G in the map annexed to the plaint and bounded as described in the plaint.
3. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 29.07.2013. Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2013 filed against the decree of dismissal has also been dismissed on 24.07.2015.
4. The instant appeal was admitted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 02.09.2015 on the following substantial question of law:
"i) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below is vitiated on account of misreading and misconstruction of the sale deed, according to which only part of the house pr
The court underscored the binding nature of public assessment records in determining property ownership and affirmed that limitation laws preclude late claims absent timely objections.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff had knowledge of a sale deed prior to 1998, failing to file within three years post-knowledge, thus confirming the defendant's title to the property....
A plaintiff claiming ownership must prove title and ongoing possession; failure to respond to prior sales bars relief, highlighted by limitation law.
The court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish claims of fraud regarding registered property transactions, which were not substantiated.
The court established that a sale deed can be declared void if proven to be forged, and that limitation does not apply when the party was unaware of the document's existence due to fraud.
The court affirmed that a Sale Deed is valid only for the share owned by the vendor, and a party can challenge findings of a lower court even without filing a cross-appeal.
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
