Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. The Divisional Engineer, Electricity, C.P.D.C. of A.P. LTD. vs Smt. N. Susheela & Ors. on 10 March, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Mar 2023

   Case Name: The Divisional Engineer, Electricity, C.P.D.C. of A.P. LTD. vs Smt. N. Susheela & Ors. on 10 March, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A.Venkateshwar Reddy Subject: Workmen’s Compensation Act – Liability of Principal Employer and Contractor – Quantum of Compensation Key Legal Propositions 1. A principal employer and contractor can be held jointly and severally liable for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, even without direct proof of an employer-employee relationship between the principal employer and the deceased workman, if the workman was executing the principal employer’s work under the contractor’s supervision. 2. The amounts payable under a Group Janata Personal Accident Policy do not preclude compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as the latter provides a separate and distinct remedy. 3. Payments made by the appellant to the claimants are deductible from the total compensation amount. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a judgment awarding compensation to the dependents of a deceased workman, N. Shaker, who died due to electrica

2. Smt P. Nagavalli vs P. Mahesh Kumar and State of Telangana on 10 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Smt P. Nagavalli vs P. Mahesh Kumar and State of Telangana on 10 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 January, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Debt – Burden of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. The complainant must establish the source of income and capacity to advance a loan amount. 2. Discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony regarding the date of the loan and the amount advanced can lead to the dismissal of the complaint. 3. Prior contradictory statements made by the complainant in another related case can be considered by the court to assess the credibility of their claim. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the respondent/accused failed to repay a loan evidenced by dishonored cheques. The trial court found that the appellant/complainant failed to prove the advance of funds and the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Held: A. On Issue of Proof of Debt: Majority View: The Court uphe

3. D. Krishna Servaryal (Died) Per LRs 3 to 6 vs Smt. D. Sudha Lakshminarayana on 08 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana8 Feb 2023

   Case Name: D. Krishna Servaryal (Died) Per LRs 3 to 6 vs Smt. D. Sudha Lakshminarayana on 08 February, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 08 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateswara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal – Partition Suit – Will Deed Validity Key Legal Propositions 1. A registered Will deed is sufficient proof of testamentary disposition, provided it meets the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The propounder of a Will has the onus to prove its validity and due execution, satisfying the court of the testator’s sound mind and voluntary execution. 3. Mere attestation of a Will does not necessarily require simultaneous signing by the testator and witnesses; subsequent attestation and registration are sufficient if the testator acknowledges the document. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a partition suit (O.S.No.1710 of 2001) by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs/appellants sought partition of a house, claiming it as self-acquired property of their deceased father. The defendant/respon

4. S Saibaba Qoud (Died) & Ors. vs Palle Trishulnath Goud & Ors. on 22 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Nov 2023

   Case Name: S Saibaba Qoud (Died) & Ors. vs Palle Trishulnath Goud & Ors. on 22 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal, Dowry Harassment, Section 304 IPC, Acquittal Key Legal Propositions 1. A victim or their legal heir can prefer an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC, provided they meet the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(w) CrPC. 2. An order of acquittal should not be lightly disturbed; compelling reasons are required to reverse it, particularly when the trial court's view is a possible one based on the evidence. 3. The appellate court must give due weight to the findings of the trial court and should only interfere if the trial court’s conclusion on facts is palpably wrong, based on an erroneous law, or manifestly unjust. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from the acquittal of respondents/accused by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, in S.C. No. 381 of 2014. The charges were under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC, relating to dowry harassment and death. The appellant, representing the de

5. Sri A. Venkateshwara Reddy vs Defendant No.5 on 20 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Sri A. Venkateshwara Reddy vs Defendant No.5 on 20 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 20 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA and Sale Deed; Fraudulent Transfer of Property; Specific Relief Key Legal Propositions 1. An Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA is conditional and subject to fulfillment of conditions, particularly payment of the entire sale consideration, before a full sale deed can be executed. 2. A vendor has the right to seek cancellation of a sale deed if the sale consideration is not fully paid, especially when the initial agreement explicitly links the sale to payment. 3. Evidence of payment of balance consideration is crucial; failure to provide such evidence, despite pleading payment, can lead to an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal suit arises from a challenge to a trial court decree cancelling an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA and a subsequent Sale Deed. The plaintiff sought cancellation alleging that the defendant fraudulently executed the Sale Deed without paying the full sale consider

6. Brilibhushan @ Bootut Pandey & Anr. vs The State of Telangana on 31 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana31 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Brilibhushan @ Bootut Pandey & Anr. vs The State of Telangana on 31 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 31 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Robbery/Dacoity, Arms Act Key Legal Propositions 1. To constitute dacoity under Section 395 IPC, there must be five or more persons involved. Lack of identification of additional accused beyond the appellants weakens the charge of dacoity. 2. Failure to produce crucial evidence, such as CCTV footage, when available, can lead to an adverse inference under Section 114G of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The acts of the appellants, involving assault and attempted theft, more accurately constitute an attempt to commit robbery under Section 393 IPC rather than dacoity under Section 395 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2020 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, convicting the appellants under Sections 395 IPC, 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, and 27 of the Arms Act for offences related to a robber

7. P Yadava Rao vs Sri P Anantha Rao on 18 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Aug 2023

   Case Name: P Yadava Rao vs Sri P Anantha Rao on 18 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 August, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Partition Suit, Property Law, Hindu Succession Act, Benami Transactions, Gift Deed, Will, Evidence Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person asserting it, requiring strict proof of intent and circumstances. 2. Registration of a document does not automatically negate the need to examine attesting witnesses if their testimony is crucial to establishing genuineness and execution, particularly in cases of dispute. 3. A registered gift deed, if not specifically denied and lacking evidence of fabrication, is generally considered valid and binding. 4. Both sons and daughters are equal Class I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, entitling them to equal shares in self-acquired property. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit for partition of Schedule A and B properties. The plaintiff sought a half share in both properties, claiming they were jointly owned. The defendant No. 1 contested this, asserting sole ownership of Schedul

8. Smt. Sagapu Vijaya & Ors. vs Sri Sanga Ramashankar & Ors. on 12 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana12 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Smt. Sagapu Vijaya & Ors. vs Sri Sanga Ramashankar & Ors. on 12 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 12 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Civil Appeal – Perpetual Injunction, Property Dispute, Ownership, Possession Key Legal Propositions 1. A certified copy of an extract from public records maintained under the Registration Act, 1908, is admissible as a public document under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, without requiring a foundation for secondary evidence. 2. A presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, applies to documents 30 years old, presuming due execution and attestation unless proven otherwise. 3. Long, uninterrupted possession of property for over four decades can outweigh challenges to title, and a true owner cannot disturb such settled possession. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit for perpetual injunction concerning a property dispute. The plaintiffs (Appellants) claimed ownership and possession of a plot based on private sale deeds and subsequent possession, while the defendants (Respondents) contested the validity of the sale deeds and asserted t

9. Konyala Sujatha vs K. Chinna Ram Reddy and Ors. on 23 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana23 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Konyala Sujatha vs K. Chinna Ram Reddy and Ors. on 23 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 23 September, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice M.G. Priyadarshini Subject: Partition of Joint Family Properties, Hindu Succession Act, Evidence Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 2. A document required by law to be attested, like a gift deed or will, cannot be used as evidence unless at least one attesting witness is examined, unless it is registered and its execution is not specifically denied. 3. Implementation of a Will through a subsequent agreement amongst coparceners precludes a claim for partition based on joint ownership. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a suit seeking partition of joint family properties. The plaintiff, a daughter of the deceased Konyala Laxma Reddy, sought to divide ancestral properties into 30 equal shares, claiming a 7-share portion for herself. The defendants included siblings and legal representatives of a deceased sibling. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding disruption of the joint family status. Held: A. On Maintainability of Suit & Partia

10. Garikipati Prabhakar Rao vs. Garikapati Madhusudhana Rao on 06 November, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Garikipati Prabhakar Rao vs. Garikapati Madhusudhana Rao on 06 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 06 November, 2023 Bench: Justice Samabasiva Rao Naidu Subject: Partition Suit, Will, Succession, Limitation, Abatement of Suit, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for partition requires the presence of all shareholders; failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased shareholder may be fatal to the suit. 2. Evidence of a valid will, supported by multiple witnesses and consistent with subsequent actions (like sale deeds), can override claims of intestate succession. 3. A judgment in a Land Grabbing Court, while binding, does not automatically establish the right to partition or negate the validity of a will. 4. Delay in bringing legal representatives on record, and failure to challenge alienations, can create adverse inferences. Judgment Summary Background: The appeals arise from a suit seeking partition of a property. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) against several defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, granting a preliminary decree for par

11. Pokala Shivudu @ Shiva vs The State of Telangana on 07 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Jun 2023

    Case Name: Pokala Shivudu @ Shiva vs The State of Telangana on 07 June, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 June, 2023 Bench: SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY Subject: Criminal Appeal – POCSO Act – Sexual Assault – Evidence – Appeal against Conviction Key Legal Propositions 1. The testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish sexual assault, even in the absence of eyewitnesses. 2. Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act raises a presumption as to the absence of consent in rape cases when the victim states she did not consent. 3. Delay in reporting a sexual assault by a minor is not necessarily fatal, especially when the delay is attributable to threats from the perpetrator. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a conviction under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. The prosecution case alleged that the accused lured the victim with the promi

12. M.Perumal Swamy (Died Per LRs A-2 to 5 and respondents 10- to 12) vs Dr. N.Harnath on 09 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jan 2023

    Case Name: M.Perumal Swamy (Died Per LRs A-2 to 5 and respondents 10- to 12) vs Dr. N.Harnath on 09 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 January, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Venkateswara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal – Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale Key Legal Propositions 1. Evidence of a witness who fails to appear for further cross-examination after being directed by the court cannot be considered. 2. An adverse inference can be drawn against a party who fails to adduce evidence to support their claim. 3. A party setting up a counter-claim without paying court fees cannot succeed. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiffs sought to enforce an agreement dated 09.12.1980 against the defendants for the sale of certain properties. The defendant No. 5 (appellant) contested the suit, claiming a prior agreement of sale in his favour. Several legal heirs were impleaded during the proceedings. Held: A. On Issue of Prior Agreement of Sale (Defendant No. 5’s Claim): Majority View: The Court held that the defendant No. 5 failed to

13. Smt. Fathima Fouzia vs. Sri Nadir Ali Mirza & Ors. on 01 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Smt. Fathima Fouzia vs. Sri Nadir Ali Mirza & Ors. on 01 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 01 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Civil Appeal & Cross Objections relating to recovery of money; Contract Act; Limitation Act; Execution of documents. Key Legal Propositions 1. Acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and a promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, though both require writing and create a fresh starting point for limitation, differ in their application. 2. A suit filed based on a confirmation letter (Ex.A.1) acknowledging a time-barred debt is maintainable under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, reviving the remedy to enforce the right. 3. Evidence of prior agreements or oral statements is inadmissible to contradict or alter the terms of a written instrument like a confirmation letter, as per the principles of evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal (C.C.C.A. No. 96 of 2003) arises from a suit filed for recovery of Rs. 25,49,961/- with interest. The plaintiffs sought recovery based on a confirmation letter (Ex.A.1) acknowledging a debt

14. Nadikuda Kistaiah vs State of Telangana on 20 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana20 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Nadikuda Kistaiah vs State of Telangana on 20 January, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 January, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani and Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 302 IPC – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction based solely on an extra-judicial confession without corroborating evidence is illegal. 2. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events consistent only with the guilt of the accused, excluding any other possibility. 3. The evidence of interested witnesses requires cautious consideration, and the prosecution must prove the connection between the crime objects and the accused. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the deceased were labourers at a dairy farm and that a quarrel led to the deceased’s

15. L. Roopa Rani Wo. L. Panduranga Reddy & Ors. vs. M. Jaswant Reddy & Ors. on 27 June, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jun 2023

    Case Name: L. Roopa Rani & Ors. vs. M. Jaswant Reddy & Ors. on 27 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: June 27, 2023 Bench: P. Naveen Rao & Nagesh Bheemapaka, JJ. Subject: Partition of Joint Family Property, Res Judicata, Hindu Succession Act Key Legal Propositions 1. The principle of *res judicata* applies when appeals are withdrawn by some parties, leading to a final decree against them, barring further challenges to the same issues. 2. A decree passed by a trial court on the merits of a case, confirmed by a higher court even through dismissal on preliminary grounds, operates as *res judicata*. 3. A daughter, even if married before the 1986 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, is entitled to a share in the joint family property. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from suits concerning the partition of ancestral and joint family properties. O.S.No.3 of 2000 involved a comprehensive suit for partition filed by multiple family members, while O.S.No.22 of 2001 was a suit for partition filed by one family member excluding married daughters. The trial court decreed a partial partition, and the present appeals challenge those f

16. Kurva Ramesh vs The State of Telangana on 03 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana3 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Kurva Ramesh vs The State of Telangana on 03 February, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana Date of Judgment: 03.02.2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha Subject: Criminal Law, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Bail Application, Procedure under NDPS Act, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in producing seized contraband before a Magistrate for certification and sampling, even if not fatal to the case, raises concerns regarding adherence to the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act. 2. Sections 52A and 52 of the NDPS Act mandate a specific procedure for seizure, inventory, certification, sampling, and forwarding of seized narcotics to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and strict compliance is crucial for ensuring the admissibility of evidence. 3. Magistrates have a duty to promptly entertain requests for certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and maintain accurate records of the process, including dates of application, verification, and dispatch of samples. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition seeks the enlargement of the petitioner, accused in a case involving the seizure of 110 kgs of ganja, on bai

17. M. Padmaia vs. Mrs. Marry Federick & Others on 03 April, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana3 Apr 2023

    Case Name: M. Padmaia vs. Mrs. Marry Federick & Others on 03 April, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 03 April, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Specific Relief, Sale of Immovable Property, Contract Law, Bonafide Purchaser Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases of sale of immovable property, time is not considered of the essence of the contract unless specifically provided. The burden of proving this lies on the defendant. 2. A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract throughout the relevant period, supported by evidence of financial capacity. 3. A purchaser is considered bonafide if they purchase property for a valid consideration, without knowledge of a prior agreement of sale, and after due verification of ownership. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff (appellant) sought to enforce a 2006 agreement to purchase a property, alleging that the defendant No. 1 sold the property to defendants 2 & 3 in collusion, despite the existing agreement. The

18. Guinmala Ranga Reddy vs The State of A P on 07 July, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Guinmala Ranga Reddy vs The State of A P on 07 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 07 July, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Rape (Section 376 IPC) – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Hostile Witness – Admissibility of Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be used as substantive evidence but only for contradicting the witness during cross-examination as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Courts cannot base convictions on morality but require admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. 3. If key witnesses turn hostile and corroborating evidence is lacking, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Judgment Summary Background: The Appellant/Accused filed a Criminal Appeal against a conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, imposed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The conviction was based on the testimony of the victim (PW1) and evidence collected during investigation. The case had been pending for a considerable time, and counsel for the appellant was

19. D.V.N.R. Kumari vs P.Venkateswara Rao on 26 September, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh26 Sept 2023

    Case Name: D.V.N.R. Kumari vs P.Venkateswara Rao on 26 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 26 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Contract Law, Promissory Notes, Forgery, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. A plea of forgery must be consistent and cannot be contradictory to earlier admissions regarding the execution of a document. 2. A court is not obligated to compare signatures for the purpose of determining forgery when the defendant fails to provide contemporary signatures for comparison. 3. Remaining ex parte in an appeal does not automatically entitle the appellant to a favorable decree; the appeal must be decided on its merits. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal suit arises from a challenge to a judgment dated 08.08.2018 in O.S.No.28 of 2016, wherein the Additional District Judge decreed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- based on a promissory note. The defendant/appellant (D.V.N.R. Kumari) contends that she signed a blank promissory note for Rs.70,000/- which was subsequently altered to reflect a larger amount, alleging forgery. Held: A. On Issue of Forgery & Execution of Promissory Note: Majority Vi

20. A.Venkatappa (Died) per L.Rs. vs. Avula Venkatamma & Ors. on 16 November, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh16 Nov 2023

    Case Name: A.Venkatappa (Died) per L.Rs. vs. Avula Venkatamma & Ors. on 16 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 16 November, 2023 Bench: Justice Bandaru Syamsunder Subject: Property Law, Adverse Possession, Title, Partition, Revenue Records Key Legal Propositions 1. Entries in revenue records are not conclusive proof of title but can be used for revenue collection purposes. 2. A plaintiff seeking a declaration of title must establish their own title independently, irrespective of any weakness in the defendant’s case. 3. While adverse possession can be used as both a shield and a sword, a co-sharer claiming adverse possession must prove specific ouster in addition to continuous possession. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over agricultural land. The plaintiffs claimed title based on adverse possession, alleging long and uninterrupted possession. The defendants contested this claim, asserting their ownership based on a registered sale deed and alleging that the plaintiffs’ possession was not adverse. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaint

Search all 2,398 judgments →