Back
SANJAY DWIVEDI
Pushpa Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Hariprasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Since both the appeals have been filed by different sets of parties challenging the common impugned judgment and decree dated 28.6.2004 passed by the First Appellate Court deciding two regular civil appeals bearing Nos. 8-A/2004 and 9-A/2004 and therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Appellants have filed these appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court vide order dated 2.3.2020 admitted the appeals on the following substantial questions of law:-
“A. Whether the first appellate Court was legally justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff/respondents were only entitled to 1/4th share in the suit lands which belonged to Moolchand?
B. Whether the Courts below were legally justified in holding that the sale-deeds of the suit lands executed in favour of the defendant/appellants by the L.Rs. of the remaining three brothers of Moolchand were void even to the extent of their 3/4th share in the suit property?
C. Whether the first appellate Court was legally justified in holding that the plaintiff/respondents had got Bhumiswami rights over the suit lands under section 190 of the MPLR Code, specially w
(1) Pleadings – Evidence can be permitted to be given only on a plea properly raised and not in contradiction of plea.(2) Adverse Possession – Once plaintiff proves his title over suit property it i....
The sale deed for the property did not require permission from the Collector, and the suit was maintainable without a declaration of title.
The court affirmed that possession based on a valid Patta grants legal title, and mere possession by others does not confer rights against the lawful titleholder.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
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
