Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Amit Garg And Others vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 8 September, 2016 cites

Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013

18. Incidentally, the appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs who had filed a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that rt they be declared owner in possession of the suit property as they had perfected the said title by way of adverse possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 669 has held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 477 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

13. What facts are required to prove adverse possession have succinctly been enunciated by this Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors. It has also been observed that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. SCC para 11 of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows : (SCC p. 785) "11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:11:37 :::HCHP 22 precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993

hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 152 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

D.N. Venkatarayappa & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 July, 1997

hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 202 - Full Document

Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Smt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors on 1 December, 1995

In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 379 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1