Back
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Madan Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against previous judgments. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions regarding ownership and joint khatedar issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. defense against ownership claims based on land area. (Para 4) |
| 4. trial court's observations on property identification. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal; no substantial question of law. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Present second appeal is being preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 passed by the District Judge, Nainital in Civil Appeal No.36 of 2015, "Narayan Singh Vs. Madan Singh", whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2015 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital in Suit No.114 of 2011, dismissing the suit of the appellant/defendant, has been upheld.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the learned trial court had framed 11 issues out of which issue Nos.1, 2 & 7 are important; that, the learned trial court and the First Appellant Court grossly erred in not deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff despite the fact that the property situated in Khasra No.6575 (wholly) and Khasara No.6576 (in part) was purchased in the name of the appellant/pl
The court affirmed that ownership and possession can be established through valid sale-deeds and corroborating evidence, even against claims of unsettled land.
In land disputes, precise identification of property is crucial; courts must appoint a survey commission to ascertain location when ownership is contested.
The demarcation of the property was necessary to ensure a full and complete adjudication of the dispute over the location of the suit property.
The court ruled that the demarcation of property is necessary for complete adjudication of disputes over its location, despite the identity of the property being undisputed.
Khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are granted only to actual cultivators, not to those claiming through others without evidence of cultivation.
The plaintiffs' claim for ownership was limited to the shares held by the landowners, and their omission to include other landowners as co-defendants breached the principle of audi alteram partem.
Possession under an agreement to sell can establish a possessory title, necessitating a survey for property location disputes.
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
