Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Musst Asia Khatun, W/o. Late Jamuddin – Petitioner
Versus
Patrik Urang, S/o. Late Simon Urang And Ors. – Respondents
RSA/220 of 2024, RSA/216 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. adjudication based on established factual background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. evaluation of proposed substantial questions of law regarding adverse possession and limitation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. mere long possession without proof of hostile intent does not constitute adverse possession. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. immovable property must be transferred according to legal requirements, not merely by physical possession. (Para 17) |
| 5. in title-based recovery suits, the defendant must disprove the established legal title. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. procedural defects not raised in lower courts cannot form substantial questions of law. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal for failing to raise substantial questions of law. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr A Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in both the appeals and Ms P Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, in both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and Decree dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to the Learned First Appellate Court), in Title Appeal No. 4/2024, thereby confirming the judgment and decree, 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to as the Learned Trial Court), in Title Suit No. 39/2019. As both the appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 39 of 2019, and challenges the judgment and decree dated 01/08/2024, passed by the Learned First Appellate Court, both the appeals are taken up together to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”). For the purpose of ascertaining the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts, which led to the filing of the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, in the same status as they stood before the Learned Trial Court.
3. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs had filed a suit before the Learned Trial Court, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit 39 of 2019, seeking declaration of their right, title and interest, over the suit land, as described in the plaint, along with recovery of Khas possession; for a decree for cancellation of the mutation of the defendants, as well as for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that a plot of land admeasuring 7 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas, was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. One Simon Orang, who was the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and the grandfather of the plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 was the pattadar of the said land. After the death of Simon Orang, the names of the plaintiffs were mutated. On 04.04.2013, the name of the defendant No. 1 was mutated by the Circle Officer, Naoboicha, over a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha, 2 kathas, 10 lechas, which is a part of the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, admeasuring 7 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas. It was alleged that on 17.07.2013, the defendant No. 2's name was also mutated against another plot of land admeasuring 4 bighas, 4 kathas 4 lechas. This land which was also mutated in the name of the defendant No. 2, was a part of the ancestral land belonging to the plaintiffs. At this stage, it is very pertinent to mention that a land in question fell within the tribal belt, as constituted by the State Government, in terms with Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, “the Regulation”). Taking into account that the mutation was carried out behind the back of the plaintiffs as alleged, the plaintiffs filed a Review Appeal No. 4 of 2015, but as the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the outcome of the said Appeal. It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintif
To prove adverse possession, the claimant must establish possession adverse to the true owner, long and continuous possession known to the true owner, the date of possession, and open and undisturbed....
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.
(1) Forfeiture of tenancy – It is defendants who had to prove forfeiture of tenancy prior to expiry of lease period.(2) Adverse Possession – By pleading adverse possession party seeks to defeat right....
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile intent and exclusive possession, which was not established in this case; mere possession or entries in revenue records do not suffice to claim ad....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
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.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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
