Back
ARINDAM LODH
Amiyanshu Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Matilal Dey – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim ownership based on deceased father's record. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. final determination of ownership and possession. (Para 3 , 7 , 18) |
| 3. analysis of presumption of ownership in khatian. (Para 8 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. defendant failed to prove better title or rebut presumption. (Para 9 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. court restores trial court’s decree with modifications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. -This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 01-02-2019 and 02.02.2019 respectively, passed by learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with Title Appeal No. 13 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellate court had dismissed the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2017 and 31.01.2017, passed in connection with TS (eviction) No. 03 of 2016, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.
2. Brief facts:
2.1. The suit is concerned about a land measuring 0.804 acres mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The claim of the plaintiff-appellants [here-in-after referred to as 'plaintiffs']s is that their father, late Arun Chandra Mohanta (Sharma) was the original owner of the suit land. The record of right was also
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
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.
Lease agreements do not confer ownership of land; independent evidence of ownership is required beyond mere entries in revenue records.
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....
A plaintiff must establish their own ownership in a suit for title and possession, as entries in revenue records do not confer title.
In property disputes, admissions by the defendant regarding ownership can significantly influence the outcome, and the absence of documentary evidence does not necessarily bar a decree for eviction i....
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
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....
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
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
