CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Appellant Fails to Establish Ownership Over "Khosh Mahal" Property

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, the appellant's claim of ownership over the revered property known as "Khosh Mahal" has been dismissed. The ruling, which carries implications for property disputes and burden of proof, underscores the appellant's failure to establish her title and ownership.

The case revolved around a suit filed by Smriti Debbarma, representing Maharani Chandratara Devi, seeking a declaration of ownership over the property described in Schedule 'A'. Amendments were made to the plaint during the proceedings, including the substitution of Smriti Debbarma as the plaintiff. The appellant sought to establish Maharani Chandratara Devi's ownership and requested various reliefs, including the declaration of any illegal transfers made by the defendants.

However, the crucial issue at hand was the appellant's ability to discharge the burden of proof. The court examined the evidence presented, including the Deed of Patta and the Ekrarnama, which formed the basis of the appellant's claim. It was observed that the description and boundaries mentioned in these documents did not align with the survey report, which highlighted significant discrepancies. Furthermore, the appellant failed to produce certified copies of maps to establish a clear connection between the identified land and the property in question.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the appellant to substantiate her title and ownership. However, due to the inconsistencies and lack of compelling evidence, the appellant fell short of meeting this burden. As a result, the court concluded that the appellant had not successfully established her ownership of the property.

The judgment highlighted the importance of demarcation and identification of properties in resolving disputes. The court emphasized the significance of accurate descriptions and boundaries, particularly in cases involving substantial assets. The absence of specific references to the building "Hotel Khosh Mahal" in the relevant documents further weakened the appellant's case.

The ruling also acknowledged the amendments made to the plaint during the proceedings, noting that they did not impact the final decision of the case. The trial court's decree in favor of the appellant was reversed by the High Court on different grounds, further underscoring the failure to prove ownership.

This landmark judgment serves as a precedent for property disputes, emphasizing the need for thorough evidence and accurate demarcation. With the appellant's claim dismissed, the ownership of the "Khosh Mahal" property remains unresolved, leaving room for potential further legal actions or disputes.

Overall, the Supreme Court's verdict reinforces the crucial role of burden of proof and the requirement for robust evidence in establishing property ownership, providing valuable guidance for future litigation in similar cases.

Decision Date: JANAURY 04, 2023.

SMRITI DEBBARMA (DEAD) VS PRABHA RANJAN DEBBARMA AND OTHERS       

 

Latest Legal News