Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Baijnath Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Kishori Mahto – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.—
By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 08.09.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, II, Bokaro at Chas in Title Appeal no. 08 of 1999 whereby and where under, learned First Appellate Court has reversed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.1998 passed by learned Sub-Judge II, Bermo at Tenughat in Title suit No. 5 of 1996 whereby and where under learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff on contest with costs and allowed the appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit no. 5 of 1996 with a prayer for declaration that the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint is raiyati land of the plaintiff by virtue of settlement made by Ramgarh Raj Estate through Fard Amin Report dated 25.10.1938 and Hukumnama dated 28.10.1938. A further declaration was made that the final order passed by Executive Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Case no. 151 of 1988 under Section 145 of CrPC which was antedated to 20.12.1994 is illegal, void and
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to plead and prove essential facts to establish adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, and hostility to the true owne....
The plaintiff must prove their title in a private suit, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interfered with unless perverse.
Adverse Possession – When a possession is sought on the ground of Sada-deed of Dar Raiyat, law of adverse possession is not available.
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.
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
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.
Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the claim.
The claim of title by adverse possession cannot be raised as an alternative plea of occupancy rayat, and the requirements for the claim of title as an occupancy rayat and that of adverse possession a....
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
