‘Burden Of Proof’ Never Shifts Whereas ‘Onus Of Proof’ Shifts Continuously In Evaluation Of Evidence: Tripura High Court

‘Burden Of Proof’ Never Shifts Whereas ‘Onus Of Proof’ Shifts Continuously In Evaluation Of Evidence

Case: Md. Akbor Ullah v. Md. Rahamat Ullah and Ors.

Coram: Justice T. Amarnath Goud

Case No.: RSA. No. 06 of 2020

Court Observation: “Thus, it can be said that the learned Trial Court was very much justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree declaring the rights, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the suit and recovery of possession of the same from the defendant as in the case the defendant had not claimed adversary possession…</span>In a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff’s title.”

“What are matters arising under and provided for by the provisions of TLR &amp; LR Act are those matters, which are adumbrated in Section-44, namely, the settlement or determination of land revenue or the incidence of any tenancy to which record of rights relates or alteration of any entry in the records of rights finally published, revised, corrected or modified under any provisions of this Chapter-V or ChapterVIII of the Act consequent upon notification issued under section 26 after commencement of the TLR and LR Act. Section-44 is exhaustive enough to cover virtually any matter in connection therewith for which the jurisdiction of civil court is excluded.”

During the subsistence of the authorization in favour of the respondents, the appellant has no locus standi to question the authorization issued in favour of the respondents. It is not for this Court to decide the validity of the allotment of land by the Government in favour of the respondents in this second appeal. If there is any violation of conditions or attraction of disqualifications, it is for the appropriate authorities to look into the matter.

Previous Posts

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Section 7 Of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Article 226: Laws Of Pleadings Don’t Go Missing In Writ Petitions; Locus Standi Essential To Maintain Writs: J&K&L High Court

Kerala High Court Denies Bail To LTTE Sympathizer Who Overstayed 5 Years In India Without Visa

Non-Renewal Of Contract During Probation Does Not Amount To ‘Retrenchment’ Under Industrial Disputes Act: Gujarat High Court

“No Accused Is Incapable Of Being Reformed”: Allahabad HC Modifies Sentence From Life Term To 10 Yr In S. 304 Part 1 IPC Conviction Case

NCTE Act: Deemed Recognition Is Without Any Limitation Or Time Bar When Conditions Are Satisfied: Gauhati High Court

Provisions Of J&K Juvenile Justice Act 2013 Retrospective, Age Of Juvenility Is 18 Yrs & Not 16: High Court

S 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate Should Order Police Investigation When Cognizable Offence Is Prima Facie Found, Especially In Sexual Offences: Supreme Court

Revision Petition Filed Before High Court By Third Party / Defacto Complainant Maintainable: Supreme Court