Landlord given lease rent but there is no lands in revenue records

It is not understood that whether the tenant has got the leased out property attached through a court order or whether the landlord got it attached?

If the landlord has a registered title document on his name, then it is established that he has got clear and markteable title on his name, if so what is your query?

landlord had a 1953 registered title document showing paimash Nos or suvery Nos, there is NO Revenue Records. only for fradulent registered document. 

in this fradulent registered document based on landloard though court attached to the leased person patta lands and houses in 1964.

Now he got information through RTI Act reocords given by Mandal Revenue Officer, in such a registere title document showing paimash Nos or Survery Nos there is No any lands.

whether the leased person recovered his house and lands?

If YES means How to filing suit and prayer?

If No means Why not to recovery of property?

request to all any one this case solution.
 

Show relevant documents to a local prudent lawyer since the facts involve multi legal issues.

The posting lack clarity and too disjointed.

Why the attachment? If in a judicial proceeding, how the matter was disposed off? 

Why and how the leessor has woken up after 60 years?

Good Afternon,

Attachment of a property by the court means that the property is being secured to satisfy a legal claim or judgment. Attachment does not imply a change in ownership of the property; it still belongs to the original owner, but he cannot sell or transfer it. However, since this attachment occurred decades ago, the prolonged inaction opens up many possibilities that may affect the status of the property today.

The absence of the property in the revenue records is a critical issue. It might have been transferred or sold in the intervening years. Such could have even been through fraudulent means. Errors in the maintenance of the revenue records could have resulted in the omission of this particular property. It is also important to reflect that the person might have come and taken possession of it and later claimed ownership. The reason is that with adverse possession, a man can obtain legal ownership even if he occupies the piece of land for a long duration without any form of objection against him.

To this point, tenants or their representative lawyers have to dig seriously. This would gather all historical records about the property, from the original attachment order to earlier years' revenue records and all evidence of subsequent transactions or changes to the property status. Where the omission occurred due to fraud or other unauthorised action, legal recourse can be taken to have the records rectified and re-establish ownership. Coordination with the local revenue authorities will be important to find out the truth behind the disappearance of the property from the records.

Another major concern is the question of limitation. Under the Limitation Act, claims must generally be brought within a certain time frame. As long as it is a period since 1964, then it might argue that the claim is time-barred on the other side. On fraud, however, the limitation period can be extended by law because fraud is a circumstance of special nature.

In the end, this will depend on the kind of evidence they can come up with and how convincingly they can argue the case in court. Principles of equity and fairness, however, may be brought into consideration by the courts, but time is a decisive factor. The tenants need to act promptly to defend their rights and establish a sound case based on historical records and any evidence of wrongdoing.

Regards,
Sankalp Tiwari

What is this irrelevant post doing here, are you penetrating with your business promotion advertisements here in this forum?