Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Tapan Kumar Deb Alias Sri Shilan Kumar Deb – Appellant
Versus
Radha Ranjan Paul – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 100 read with Order XXII Rule 1 read with order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC against the judgment dated 09.02.2018 and Decree passed on 20.02.2018 in Title Appeal No.18 of 2012 by the Learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar upholding the Judgment dated 28.06.2012 and Decree the dated 02.07.2012 passed in Title Suit No.24 of 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura dismissing the suit of the appellant.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the title suit. The brief fact of the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the landed property measuring about 12 sataks under Khatian No.113 pertaining to present C/S plot No.400 under Mouja and T.K-Ramnagar, Dharmanagar as described in the schedule of the plaint as the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid landed property from one Chaturi Singh through registered sale deed No.1-1848 dated 12.07.05 and since then he has been possessing the said land. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the said landed property was in the possession of Bipin Chandra Das being the permissive possessor under the said Chaturi Singh an
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
A claim of title and adverse possession cannot coexist; plaintiffs must establish their title to succeed in a suit for declaration.
Revenue records do not establish ownership; the burden of proving title lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide valid documentation leads to resolution against the claim.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove ownership; failure to seek possession forfeits claims against an adverse possessor.
The burden of proof in title suits rests with the plaintiffs to establish a superior title; revenue entries are insufficient to confer ownership.
Lease agreements do not confer ownership of land; independent evidence of ownership is required beyond mere entries in revenue records.
A tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord; the burden of proof lies on the tenant to demonstrate cessation of the landlord-tenant relationship.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to substantiate ownership with clear evidence; mere possession is inadequate for claims. Title must be proven, not presumed.
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
