Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 2002
In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. the apex court declared that onus of proof to establish acquisition of title by prescription lies on the party who makes any such assertion. The court further held that time for the purpose of adverse possession, would start running from the date both, the actual possession and assertion of title, are shown to exist. The court explained that mere possession of land, however long it may be would not ripen into title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner and that an assertion of title by adverse possession must be clear and unequivocal though not necessarily addressed to the real owner. Consequently, where at the commencement of the possession there is no animus possidendi, the period relevant for the plea of adverse possession commences from the date when both, the actual possession and assertion of title by the possessor, are shown to exist. In the peculiar facts of the case before their lordships' it was held that the defendants had pleaded adverse possession for the first time only in the written statement filed in the suit, the court accordingly excluded the period till the date of the filing of the written statement from reckoning on the ground that there was no animus possidendi during the said period nor had the defendant claimed any title to the land in dispute adverse to the defendant. The following passage is in this connection apposite:
Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995
In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors. v. Balwant @ Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs & heirs etc. . Their lordships described the meaning of the expression adverse possession and the pre-requisite for proving the same in the following words:
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
16. To the same effect is the decision of Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Ors. where the court summed up the legal position in the following passage
It is well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec 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, hostile and continued over the statutory period. 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. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should 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 has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
In T. Anjanappa and Ors. v. Somalingappa and Anr. 2006 (7) SCC 570 the Supreme Court laid emphasis on the animus of the person in possession for determining whether the same was adverse to the true owner and reiterated the legal principles that are applicable in cases involving adverse possession.
Harbans Kaur And Ors. vs Bhola Nath And Anr. on 1 December, 1994
18. Three single bench decisions of this Court in Devi Charan and Anr. v. Ranpat Singh and Ors. , Harbans Kaur and Ors. v. Bhola Nath amd Anr. 57 (1994) DLT 101, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.)
Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) R.N. Dawar vs Shri Ganga Saran Dhama on 24 September, 1992
R.N. Dawar v. Shri Ganga Saran Dhama DRJ 1992 (24) follow the same line of reasoning.
The Limitation Act, 1963
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
In S.M Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina the Supreme Court declared that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and that a plea is required to at least show as to when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party effected by the same can be determined.
Devi Charan vs Ranpat Singh on 1 December, 1996
18. Three single bench decisions of this Court in Devi Charan and Anr. v. Ranpat Singh and Ors. , Harbans Kaur and Ors. v. Bhola Nath amd Anr. 57 (1994) DLT 101, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.)
1