Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Thangaraj vs Amuthavalli on 12 March, 2012 cites

Roop Singh (Dead) Through Lrs vs Ram Singh (Dead) Through Lrs on 28 March, 2000

In view of the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court referred to above, the plea of the defendant that he was in adverse possession against the true owners of the property would be a negative right claimed by the defendant against the true owner. It has been categorically found that there was a permissive occupation by the defendant in the suit property. Unless such permissive occupation was shown to have been terminated by a distinctive hostile attitude, the adverse possession pleaded by the defendant, cannot be considered. It is curious to note that the defendant himself has sought to have claimed a right over the suit property of his own by getting it in a oral partition in the year 1980. In such circumstances, there could not be any hostile attitude for the defendant to claim adverse possession. Admittedly, the permission granted to the defendant was revoked through Ex.A3 notice in the year 1999 and if at all the possession of the defendant would be adverse to the plaintiff only from said date of Ex.A3. However, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on 20.1.2000 within one year from the date of revocation of the permission. Therefore, the defendant cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner in respect of the suit property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 89 - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011

14. Nextly, when we approach the case on the basis of the pleadings raised by the defendant claiming absolute right in the suit property as well as adverse possession towards long continuous possession, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that it is clear from the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2011 (10) SCC 404 (State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar) that the plea of adverse possession is a negative right which is also against the human right. The relevant passage in the said judgment would run thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 472 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1