Baij Nath vs Vishwanath Pandey And Others on 12 May, 2000
"The respondents learned counsel laid stress especially upon observations in B. Mahabir Singh and another v. B. Shanker
Singh and another, in support of his argument that the acts concerned in the Instant case are not acts of possession. No such Inference is possible to be drawn. The subject-matter of dispute in that case was a piece of waste land belonging to the Zamindar and lying between the houses of two sets of ryots. The finding was that by temporary use for occasional necessities of a house holder such as keeping firewood until it is exhausted, bricks until they are used and on the occasion of a marriage once every few years placing chulhas to cook food the plaintiff could not lay claim to exclusive possession in themselves and even if continued for 12 years these acts would not establish adverse possession.