Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Nani Gopal Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Sandhya Sinha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Unakoti, Kailashahar, in the Title Appeal No. 10 of 2014.
2. At the outset, the controversy that led to filing of the suit may briefly be introduced. The appellant-plaintiff has instituted the suit Title Suit No. 41 of 2013 against the respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit immovable property and recovery of possession thereof from the defendants.
3. The plaintiff-appellant case in short compass is that the suit land measuring 1.57 acres recorded under Khatian No. 222 of Mouja Kumargath and other land originally owned by the father namely Akhil Chandra Ghosh since deceased. The said Akhil Chandra Ghosh gave jot settlement of the suit land to the plaintiff by executing a lease deed bearing no. 2861 dated 1962 accordingly, the record of right vide Khatian No. 222 of the suit land was prepared in the name of the plaintiff. The record of rights was finally published during revision survey operation during the year 1987. Thus, the plaintiff had been possessed the suit land as "RAYAT" th
Lease agreements do not confer ownership of land; independent evidence of ownership is required beyond mere entries in revenue records.
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
The court affirmed that adverse possession requires substantial proof that is open, continuous, and adverse to the true owner for over 12 years, emphasizing legal title must be established by clear e....
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
Adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession; claims based on mere occupation without valid documents are insufficient.
The court confirmed that adverse possession can secure title even against invalid transfer documents, provided uninterrupted possession exceeds 12 years and is public, emphasizing the significance of....
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
