Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
JAI KUMAR PILLAI
Gulab – Appellant
Versus
Radheshayam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jai Kumar Pillai, J.
The appellants/defendants/Gulab and others have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10/02/2023 passed in RCA No.73-A/2018 by the Vth District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District-Indore whereby the learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19/11/2018 passed by Vth Civil Judge, Class-II, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District-Indore in Civil Suit No.26- A/2015 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff/Radheyshyam.
Facts of the case, in short are as under :-
2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction and mesne profit with respect to suit property i.e. agricultural land bearing survey No.119/1, 119/2, 119/3 having total area of 1.16 Acre i.e. 0.470 hectare, situated at Village-Awalipura, Tehsil-Mhow, District - Indore (M.P.)
3. It is admitted fact in the present case that the suit land has been recorded in the name of appellant No. 1 to 3 after the demise of their father Shri Thawar Singh. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff moved an application before Nayab Tehsildar on 10-11- 2006 f
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
The judgment affirms that civil courts lack jurisdiction over certain land disputes involving aboriginal tribes under specific statutory provisions.
Appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless there is a substantial question of law or a material irregularity; mere disagreements on facts are insufficient for overturning decisions.
Ownership claims based on revenue records require substantiated evidence; mere entries do not confer title. Courts upheld prior judgments confirming plaintiffs' rights to the property.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession and ownership based on an oral gift must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the burden of proof lies with....
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
