Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Chatti Konati Rao & Ors vs Palle Venkata Subba Rao on 7 December, 2010
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chatti Konati Rao and
others Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases
316, has held:-
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
In the case of T. Anjanappa
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:11:37 :::HCHP
21
v. Somalingappa, it has been held that mere possession
however long does not necessarily mean that it is
adverse to the true owner and the classical requirement
of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such
possessions are in denial of the true owner's title.
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,
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:-
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1