Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)Section 12 in The Assam Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Chatur Bhuj Prasad Khattri vs Hari Narain Khattri And Others on 9 November, 1990
10. Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Consolidation Officer had framed issue No. 3 to the effect that as to whether Smt. Thakura Devi has right to execute a Will in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that Bharat died in the year 1950 who was recorded in the year 1356 F. and Smt. Thakura Devi was recorded in the revenue record in the year 1369 F. She was continued in possession for more than twenty years and her share was separate in the partition suit, therefore, the presumption of adverse possession is implied and the Court has power to decide the right on the principles of adverse possession and right of estoppel and acquiescence without specific pleading or without framing issues. For this purpose, he has cited a case Chaturbhuj Prasad Khatri v. Hari Narain Khatri and others, 1991 ED 314. In this case, it was held by the High Court that the plaintiff who filed a suit for possession on the basis of title, it is open to the defendents to say that at the determination of the period of limitation, the right of the plaintiff to recover the revenue record and actually she was neither the owner nor in possession. The contesting respondents have claimed that Smt. Thakura Devi was living separately from her grandsons and grandsons were in possession on behalf of Smt. Thakura Devi and that the chaks were carved out separately in the name of Smt. Thakura Devi, therefore, the question now in the present case is as to whether Smt. Thakura Devi was claiming herself as heir and successor of her husband or on the basis of the adverse possession or whether her name was only for the consolidation purposes, but these points were not considered either by the three consolidation authorities.
Section 18 in The Assam Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
12. The third case cited by Sri Sachan regarding presumption of correctness of the entry unless contrary is proved. His submission is that as the name of Smt. Thakura Devi was recorded along with the names of the petitioners; the presumption of correct entry was there. He has further placed reliance on a decision in Nagubai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593, for the purpose that absence of specific pleading of question was mere irregularity.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1