Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Umabai Annasaheb Bhosle vs M S E B Staff Co Oprative Credit Socity on 5 June, 2015

Rc No. 2/18 vs Ram Avtar Gupta on 6 November, 2020

15. "Adverse possession "means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. (See Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil, 1995(2) RRR 370 : AIR 1995SC 895 at 902).
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Relan vs Kaushal Kumari Relan on 19 January, 2017

"14. ........Adverse possession means a [hostile possession] which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 [of the Limitation Act,] burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed....." (See Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil; (1995) 2 SCC 543).
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Anandrao Babasaheb Awaghad (Dead) Thr. ... vs Durgashankar S/O Ghanshyam Agrawal on 9 January, 2026

"15. "Adverse possession" means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence ie. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. (See Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil, 1995(2) RRR 370 at 902)."
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinayak S/O Laxmanrao Jadhav vs Durgashankar Ghanshyam Agrawal on 9 January, 2026

42. SA 310.25.odt 7 "15. "Adverse possession" means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence ie. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. (See Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil, 1995(2) RRR 370 at 902)."
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tarun Chauhan vs Sanjeev Chauhan on 16 November, 2019

15. "Adverse possession "means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. (See Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil, 1995(2) RRR 370 : AIR 1995SC 895 at 902).
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1