Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
4. For the same proposition reliance has also been placed upon
AIR 2007 SC 1753 P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma
& Ors. It is pointed out that the real owner of the property must be
specified in an adverse possession claim which is missing in the
instant case.
L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash on 21 April, 2009
For the same proposition reliance has been placed
upon a judgment reported in (2009) 13 SCC 229 L.N.Aswathama &
Anr. Vs. P. Prakash as also a judgment of the Single Bench of this
Court reported in 162(2009) DLT 248 D.M.H.P. Sales Ltd. Vs. New
Howrah Transport Company & Ors. It is pointed out that the plea
of the defendant that the plaintiff is not true owner of the suit
property would result in holding that the defendant no.1 has failed
to prove perfection of title to the suit property by adverse
possession; it is pointed out that in this case also the defendant has
set up a plea that the plaintiff is not the true owner of the suit
property; claim of adverse therefore cannot hold any water.
State Of Rajasthan vs Harphool Singh (Dead) Through His L.Rs on 4 May, 2000
Reliance has been
placed on (2000) 5 SCC 652 State of Rajasthan Vs. Harphool Singh
to substantiate the same submission. It is pointed out that a
finding which is based on legally unacceptable evidence and which
is patently contrary to the law is a perverse finding which is liable
to be set aside under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
Rama Kanta Jain vs M.S. Jain And Others on 24 March, 1999
In my opinion, the approach of the trial court
was erroneous and the facts of Rama Kanta's case were not
properly appreciated by the trial court. In the case of Rama
Kant, the defendant was the elder brother of the plaintiff's
husband and his possession was permissive to begin with.
In that case, the defendant admitted that the apparent title
was in the name of the plaintiff but he contended that the
transaction was benami and that he had also contributed
towards the purchase of the property. It was on these facts
RSA No.46/2001 Page 5 of 15
that the Hon'ble High court observed that the defendant had
impliedly admitted the plaintiff to be the true owner. A
presumption of admission of ownership can be raised only in
those cases where the person claiming adverse possession,
enters the property with the permission of the true owner
and starts claiming hostile title subsequently. In other
cases, the only requirement is that the person claiming
adverse possession should know that the property belonged
to someone else and not to him. He need not acknowledge
any particular person as true owner. If he occupies the
property with the knowledge that it does not belong to him
and openly remains in continuous possession of the property
for more than 12 years, he can validly claim title. In the
present case, DW2, Puran Mal stated in the examination-in-
chief as well as on cross-examination that the land was lying
vacant when his father constructed the room on it. From
this statement, it is clear that the construction was raised
with the knowledge that the land belonged to someone else.
The defendant/appellant has made no attempt whatsoever to
trace the title to a lawful origin and, therefore, the element
of hostility must have been there from the very beginning.
Mohan Singh Kohli And Anr. vs Sh. Brij Bhushan Anand And Ors. on 6 December, 2006
In a subsequent judgment of a Bench of this Court in the case
of Mohan Singh Kohli (supra) while relying upon the proposition
laid down in the case of T. Anjanappa (supra), the following broad
principles of adverse possession culled out.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
11. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that unless adverse possession is set up against the true
owner, the requirement of adverse possession cannot be met is not
a correct proposition of law. The Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa
(supra) had held:
Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995
3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that this finding
in the impugned judgment is perverse. It calls for an interference.
It is submitted that to establish the plea of adverse possession, the
defendant had to set up that this plea against the true and the
original owner; in the written statement defendant has merely
stated that he has become the owner by adverse possession but at
the same time he has rebutted the claim of the plaintiff; he is not
claiming hostile and uninterrupted possession of the suit property
qua the plaintiff; adverse possession necessarily encompasses that
there must be an open, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted
possession against the true owner since last 12 years. This onus
RSA No.46/2001 Page 7 of 15
has not been discharged. Learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
(1995) 2 SCC 543 Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Vs. Balwant
to support this submission. It is pointed out that the person who
bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and
unequivocal evidence that the possession was hostile to the real
owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.
It is pointed out that in the instant case, the defendant till date
does not even know who is the real owner; he is contesting the
ownership of the plaintiff; neither Nihalo Devi nor Memwati were
the owners of the suit property as such they could not pass a better
title to the plaintiff than what they themselves had.