9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Claim of title based on occupancy tenancy rights - Oral arrangement with Dumraon Raj - Evidence of possession and ownership - Interpretation of Regulation XI of 1825 - Continuity of ownership of frontier plots - Apportionment of alluvial accretions - Joint ownership and possession claims - Gradual accession of Taufir lands Claim of Title based on Occupancy Tenancy Rights: The plaintiffs' claim of title was primarily based on the occupation of certain lands as occupancy tenants by their ancestor, Naurang Thakur. However, the survey papers did not support this claim, and the oral arrangement with Dumraon Raj was not established. The evidence presented, including oral testimony and documentary records, did not substantiate the plaintiffs' occupancy rights. The court found that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were not in possession of the disputed land, and the claim of title under Regulation XI of 1825 was not adequately supported. Interpretation of Regulation XI of 1825: The plaintiffs contended that their ancestors had asserted title to certain lands under Regulation XI of 1825. However, this claim was not clearly made in the initial pleading and was raised for the first time in the High Court. The court held that previous suits did not conclusively establish this claim, and the evidence presented did not consistently support the assertion of title under the Regulation. Continuity of Ownership of Frontier Plots: The court examined the continuity of ownership of frontier plots in Dubha Mal between 1845 and 1863, concerning the accretion of Taufir lands. While the plaintiffs argued for a presumption of continuity, the court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish such continuity. The court highlighted the changing ownership of plots and the seasonal nature of settlements, concluding that the presumption of continuity was not applicable in this case. Apportionment of Alluvial Accretions: Regarding the apportionment of alluvial accretions, the court emphasized the need for a proper investigation and apportionment among the various frontier plots. The court noted that without such apportionment, the plaintiffs' claim for the entire Taufir lands could not succeed. The lack of joint ownership and possession further weakened the plaintiffs' claim. Joint Ownership and Possession Claims: The plaintiffs attempted to introduce a new case of joint ownership based on the common ancestor holding all frontier plots. However, this case was not part of the original pleadings and was raised for the first time during the proceedings. The court declined to consider this new case, emphasizing the lack of pleading and proof regarding joint ownership and inheritance from the common ancestor. Gradual Accession of Taufir Lands: The plaintiffs failed to establish their claim based on gradual accession of Taufir lands from the recess of the river. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on this issue due to the overall failure of the plaintiffs to prove their title based on various grounds. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, as the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims of title based on occupancy tenancy rights, oral arrangements, possession, and interpretation of relevant regulations. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case and the failure to establish ownership and continuity of possession over the disputed lands.
|
