Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003
4. The argument of the learned counsel is
that when the suit is for recovery of possession
based on title, Article 65 of the Limitation Act
1963 governs the field and under Article 65 burden
is on the respondents to establish that they have
been in possession of the property adverse to the
appellant for the requisite period and respondents
1 and 2 obtained possession from third respondent
only in 1992 and third respondent did not file a
written statement and did not claim adverse
possession and possession of respondents 1 and 2
from 1992 is insufficient to uphold the plea of
adverse possession as suit was instituted in 1992
and in the absence of evidence on the side of third
R.S.A.401/2006 5
respondent that property was in their possession
or the assignor of the third respondent, with the
necessary animus to possess it as against the
appellant, finding of the courts below that title
of appellant is lost by adverse possession is
unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the decision
of the Apex Court in MD.Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish
Kalita (2004) 1 SCC 271, Ramiah v. N.Narayana Reddy
(2004) 7 SCC 541, and a Division Bench of this
Court in George Thomas v. Geondy Joseph 2005 (1)
KLT 864).
Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004
4. The argument of the learned counsel is
that when the suit is for recovery of possession
based on title, Article 65 of the Limitation Act
1963 governs the field and under Article 65 burden
is on the respondents to establish that they have
been in possession of the property adverse to the
appellant for the requisite period and respondents
1 and 2 obtained possession from third respondent
only in 1992 and third respondent did not file a
written statement and did not claim adverse
possession and possession of respondents 1 and 2
from 1992 is insufficient to uphold the plea of
adverse possession as suit was instituted in 1992
and in the absence of evidence on the side of third
R.S.A.401/2006 5
respondent that property was in their possession
or the assignor of the third respondent, with the
necessary animus to possess it as against the
appellant, finding of the courts below that title
of appellant is lost by adverse possession is
unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the decision
of the Apex Court in MD.Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish
Kalita (2004) 1 SCC 271, Ramiah v. N.Narayana Reddy
(2004) 7 SCC 541, and a Division Bench of this
Court in George Thomas v. Geondy Joseph 2005 (1)
KLT 864).
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
George Thomas vs Geondy Joseph on 14 December, 2004
4. The argument of the learned counsel is
that when the suit is for recovery of possession
based on title, Article 65 of the Limitation Act
1963 governs the field and under Article 65 burden
is on the respondents to establish that they have
been in possession of the property adverse to the
appellant for the requisite period and respondents
1 and 2 obtained possession from third respondent
only in 1992 and third respondent did not file a
written statement and did not claim adverse
possession and possession of respondents 1 and 2
from 1992 is insufficient to uphold the plea of
adverse possession as suit was instituted in 1992
and in the absence of evidence on the side of third
R.S.A.401/2006 5
respondent that property was in their possession
or the assignor of the third respondent, with the
necessary animus to possess it as against the
appellant, finding of the courts below that title
of appellant is lost by adverse possession is
unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the decision
of the Apex Court in MD.Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish
Kalita (2004) 1 SCC 271, Ramiah v. N.Narayana Reddy
(2004) 7 SCC 541, and a Division Bench of this
Court in George Thomas v. Geondy Joseph 2005 (1)
KLT 864).
1