TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Civil Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Land Dispute Appeal, Dismisses Limitation Argument</h1> The Supreme Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits regarding a land dispute in ... - Issues:Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.Analysis:The case involved a dispute over possession of land in Bhopal. The respondents claimed to be khatedars of the land and filed a suit against the appellant for illegal possession. The trial court and the Additional District Judge both found in favor of the respondents, holding that they were the rightful khatedars. The appellant argued that a previous decree by the Tahsildar under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act should bar the civil court's jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and concluded that a suit based on title and possession by a khatedar against a trespasser falls outside the scope of the Act, allowing the civil court to have jurisdiction.The appellant also contended that the entries in the Record of Rights favored him, indicating his ownership of the land. However, the courts below, after considering all evidence, found in favor of the respondents. The High Court re-examined the evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings, concluding that the presumption in favor of the appellant was rebutted by the evidence presented by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts' findings of fact were conclusive and declined to reassess them, thereby rejecting the appellant's challenge to the findings.Lastly, the appellant raised a limitation argument, claiming that the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court determined that since the suit was filed for possession after being dispossessed, it fell under a specific article of the Indian Limitation Act and was not time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions and ordering costs to be paid by the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
