Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 350
📌 Paras 2-3
The appellant sought declaration of his khatedari rights and recovery of land allegedly encroached upon by the respondents, based on a succession claim from his father. The appellant alleged the respondents fabricated a sale deed for the encroachment. The initial suit was decreed in 1975, but subsequent appeals and remands occurred over several decades. The Board of Revenue found the original authority failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the first defendant to adduce evidence and noted discrepancies in her appearance and the handling of the sale deed and mutation records.
📌 Para 4
Whether the impugned orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue, which remanded the matter and favoured the defendant, were justif
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial