Back
ARINDAM LODH
Biplab Bikash Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Brajagopal Saha Banik @ Brajagopal Banik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim ownership and history of dispossession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. trial court upheld plaintiff's title and possession. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. issues of limitation and res judicata addressed. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. defendants argue res judicata without evidence. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. appeal dismissed without costs. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appears for the respondents despite repeated calls.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019 passed by learned District Judge, North Tripura Judicial District, Dharmanagar in connection with Title Appeal No.10 of 2013, wherein the learned first Appellate Court had confirmed and upheld the judgment dated 24.04.2013 and decree dated 06.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura District in Title Suit No.21 of 2001.
3. By way of instituting the present suit, the plaintiffs, i.e. the present respondents, had prayed for granting declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land scheduled below and directing that the p
A suit for recovery of possession is maintainable if filed within twelve years, and claims of res judicata require substantial evidence of previous identical disputes which were not demonstrated.
Point of Law : It is a well-settled principle of law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuou....
The court held that the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation, reinforcing the importance of timely legal action as defined under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
Suit for possession – Counter claim - In the absence of a pleading, mere production of judgment will not be sufficient to record a finding as to whether the plaintiff ought to have sought for possess....
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
It is settled law that while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., defence is immaterial and Court has to only look into averments of plaint and application cannot be dec....
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in property disputes and the necessary conditions for a matter to be considered directly and substantially in issue....
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
