Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Arpana Malakar @ Aparna Malakar – Appellant
Versus
Sub-divisional Magistrate Kailashahar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908 against the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 12.09.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District Kailashahar, in Title Appeal 3 of 2016, whereby learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, reversed the Judgment & Decree dated 30.09.2013 & 01.10.2013 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura District Judiciary in Title Suit No.23 of 2011.
2. The short of the plaintiffs' case (the appellants herein) is that the land measuring 0.791 acres of khatian no.4940 under Kailashahar mouja pertaining to Old C.S Plot No.7398(p) corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 7180 totaling land measuring 0.426 acres and pertaining to CS Plot No. 7403 corresponding to RS Plot No.7186 totaling land measuring 0.365 described in the 1st schedule in the suit land of this suit. The land measuring 0.100 acres described in 2nd schedule was sold to plaintiff nos.6 and 7 by plaintiff no.s 1 to 5 and their deceased mother Maya Rani Malakar. The land measuring 0.691 acres described in 3rd schedule is the remaining land in the hand of plaintiff nos. 1 to 5. The plaint
The appellate court's decision was deemed perverse for disregarding an unchallenged survey report on ownership, necessitating a re-evaluation of the case.
The court held that a title deed must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the Survey Commissioner's findings are critical in resolving land disputes.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
A plaintiff can amend a suit to specify claims based on substantial evidence. Courts must consider all relevant claims and evidence to prevent erroneous dismissal.
Ownership and encroachment claims on land require clear proof and adherence to established records, emphasizing the necessity of addressing specific issues raised during the trial.
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.
Proper identification of property ownership is essential in disputes, and prior deeds must reflect accurate details to establish rightful title.
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
