Back
ARINDAM LODH
Anjali Debnath – Appellant
Versus
Ratan Debnath – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. consideration of substantial questions of law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. analysis and reasoning of appellate court's errors. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. DK Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
2. The present second appeal originates from the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in connection with Title Appeal 21 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2015 and 16.11.2015 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati, Udaipur in Title Suit 16 of 2011 had been dismissed.
3. Shortly stated, the appellant in the instant appeal was the original plaintiff who instituted a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit land and for perpetual injunction against the respondent no. 1. It is her case that she purchased the suit land from respondent no. 2 vide Sale Deed no. I-495 dated 17.03.2009. After such purchase of the suit land
Possession follows title; documentary evidence prevails over oral testimony in establishing property rights.
The second appeal requires substantial questions of law that affect party rights; concurrent factual findings from lower courts are binding unless proved perverse.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
In appeals concerning land ownership, the appellate court must address possession issues; possession is presumed to follow title, and failure to consider this may constitute a serious procedural erro....
A registered sale deed over 30 years old carries a presumption of authenticity, shifting the burden of proof to the opposing party to challenge its validity.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
In disputes involving conflicting title claims, a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent declaration of title, reaffirmed by the necessity of evidencing lawful possess....
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove both title and settled possession, failing which the claim may be dismissed.
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
