Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 260 (2.02 seconds)
Documents citing Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors on 23 September, 2008

Meenugu Mallaiah And Others vs Ananthula Rajaiah And Another on 9 September, 2016

In view of these two judgments, the Apex Court in P.T. Munichikkana Reddy v. Revamma and Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhal Khengarbhai Harijan and others and in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (referred supra) had taken a serious view. If that is the case what will happen to the person, who is continuing in possession for a longer period with the notice of owner, who was disabled to enjoy the property for such long period. When a person in occupation of the property though entered into wrongfully either committing crime or tort and after passing sometime he is bound to pay taxes to the Government and sometimes improve the property raising huge or massive constructions or reasonable constructions to the knowledge of real owner, when suddenly real owner woke-up and approach the Court for recovery of possession, certainly it would cause huge loss to the person in possession and similarly the real owner would also put to hardship, but the benefit of limitation can be extended to a person, who is not dormant and at the same time the person who entered into wrongful possession is not entitled to claim equities in his favour. In those circumstances, it is difficult to decide such situation either in favour of the real owner or in favour of person in wrongful possession for a statutory period of 12 years. Perhaps, this is the reason for fixing 12 years period as limitation to claim right over the property by the real owner or to ripen the wrongful possession into adverse possession after completion of continuous possession of 12 years to the knowledge of the real owner. In that view of the position, One oft mentioned explanation can be summed up as you snooz, you loose. According to this sleeping theory adverse possession acts as civil penalty for the wrong doers. The wrong doers are those who sleep on their rights and the penalty is to loose those rights. The law shifts rights away from those who do not use their land because they no longer deserve to hold title. Similarly, those who abstain from suing no longer deserve the right to sue. In either case, the shifting of rights from one person is desirable because it balance the scale of justice.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Bharatkumar vs Devjibhai on 18 July, 2009

15. Although from the record what is expected when such claim of possession is put-forth, as held by the Apex Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Ors. (supra) is absent. The respondent does not appear to have established prima facie case in terms of length of possession, the nature of possession, and whether such possession was open and undisturbed. Particularly considering the report of the Bank as also considering the fact that various legal procedures were undertaken in respect of the suit land which changed hands thrice balance on both the sides needed to be struck. And yet the appellate Court having found the Kachha room in the premises, was of the opinion that without the due process of law and this plea of possession being the mixed question of law and fact, the recordance of evidence would be inevitable and, therefore, directed both the parties to maintain status quo, with further direction to expeditiously decide the matter preferably within 6 months. There is absolutely nothing illegal that could be pointed out from the said order. It does not reveal any miscarriage of justice nor any jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is called for.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Sahib Singh And Another vs Malika Arora And Others on 27 October, 2025

27. The Court also rejected the contention that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation. It was held that no equity lies in favour of a person who claims ownership by denying the title of another, and that the law of adverse possession, which deprives an owner merely for inaction, is irrational and disproportionate. The Court referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Har Harijan ijan and others (2009) 16 SCC 517, 517 and Jhandu (dead) through L.Rs. v. Moli 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 166,, as well as to Tej Narain and another v. Shanti Swaroop Bohre and another 2015(1) CCC 478, 478, to hold that the plea of adverse possession must be strictly proved.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Prabhat Kumar Didwania vs Smt. Juthika Nath & Ors on 2 April, 2015

12. Admittedly, the defendant has not adduced any evidence before the trial court to prove the facts stated in the pleading. In the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence on the part of the defendant it is well-nigh impossible for us to accept that the possession of the defendant in the suit premises became adverse to the plaintiff after expiry of the term of lease deed on 1st August, 1970. Accordingly, the defendant cannot get the benefit of the law laid down in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of our above findings, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The judgment and decree passed by Learned Judge of the court below in Title Suit No.458 of 1998 is hereby affirmed. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent down to the Learned Court below along with lower court records for favour of information.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R K Bag - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next