Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kamla And Ors. vs Baldev Singh And Ors. on 26 October, 2007
In Kamla and others vs. Baldev Singh and
others 2008(1) Shim. LC 215, this court has held as
under:-
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Smt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors on 1 December, 1995
clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of
the true owner. It is well settled principle that a party
claiming adverse possession must prove that his
possession is " nec vi, nec clam, nec precario" i.e.
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, hostile
and continued over the statutory period. Therefore, a
person who claims adverse possession has to show (a)
on what date he came into possession; (b) what was
the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum
of possession was known to the other party ; (d) how
long his possession is continued; and (e) his
possession was open and undisturbed. It has to be
remembered that the person pleading adverse
possession has no equity in his favour since he is
trying to defeat the right of the true owner, therefore,
it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts
necessary to establish his adverse possession (Refer
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. Raj Kumari Sharma
(Smt.) and others (1996) 8 SCC 128 ).
Mrs. Parkash Singhal And Others vs Sunil Kumar Singhal And Others on 20 January, 2014
25. This court further in Deepak Parkash vs. Sunil
Kumar 2014(1) Him. L.R. 654 has emphasized on the
requirement of law of pleading the exact date from which
the possession became adverse, in the following terms:
Baleshwar Tewari/& Ors vs Sheo Jatan & Ors on 20 March, 1997
Entries in Revenue Records are the paradise of the
Patwari. This quote from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Baleshwar Tewari (deceased) by LRs and others vs.
Seo Jatan Tiwary and others (1997) 5 SCC 112, is fully
applicable to the facts of the instant appeal.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Satpal Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 August, 2016
27. What is adverse possession has been dealt in detail
in Para 10 of Satpal's case supra, which reads thus:-
Commissioner Of C. Ex. & Cus., Surat-Ii vs Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. on 1 February, 2002
22. The judgment in Tilak Raj's case (supra) has
subsequently been followed in RSA No. 366 of 1999, titled Surat
Ram vs. Jyoti (since deceased) through her LRs & others,
decided on 21.09.2010, wherein it was observed as under:-
1