Back
ARINDAM LODH
Nakul Chandra Das S/o Lt. Sadhan Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
Chanmohan Saha, S/o Lt. Lalmohan Saha – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Arindam Lodh, J. - This is a second appeal filed by the appellants, the defendants in the original suit, under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ,1908 [for short, the 'CPC'] against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No. TA 23/2018, whereby and whereunder the learned first appellate court had upheld and affirmed the judgment & decree dated 08.05.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.7, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with Case No. T.S. 47 of 2016.
2. The facts of the case, as projected by learned First Appellate Court, may be reproduced here-in-below:
'Brief facts leading to this appeal is that father of the plaintiff namely, Lalmohan Saha (now deceased) having record-of-right vide Khatian No.1322 in his favour was the owner in possession of the suit land. The father of plaintiff died on 17.08.1991 leaving behind the plaintiff and his mother Smt. Parul Bala Saha who also expired on 18.06.2009. On the death of his father the plaintiff and his mother applied for having mutation of the suit land in their favour and ac
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
The court affirmed that a plaint must show a valid cause of action to proceed, and suppression of material facts alone does not justify dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Plaintiff's subsisting title must be established to claim possession. Adverse possession claim requires fulfillment of specific requirements.
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show adverse possession, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the claim.
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
