Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Krishan Chand vs Amar Nath & Others on 1 June, 2016 cites

Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 1994

while considering the plea of adverse possession qua the suit land. It further held that the adverse possession even otherwise is mixed question of law and fact and simply because the plaintiff was not cross-examined on material point that would not necessarily mean that of defendants had admitted the entire case of the plaintiff. It further held that it was not a case where plaintiff had done overt act over the suit rt land by raising some kind of construction etc. which was so ostensible in nature so as to give rise to the presumption that possession of the plaintiff throughout has been hostile. Thus, the Learned First Appellate Court concluded that the findings returned by the Learned Trial Court regarding plea of adverse possession cannot be legally sustained. It further held that, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, in that eventuality also, no relief of injunction can be granted to the plaintiff against the true owner. It further held that though even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession and cannot be evicted from any parcel of land except in due course of law, however, the object of law is to discourage the people from taking law in their own hand irrespective of their title. It further held by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:54 :::HCHP 7 in Premji Rattansav Shah Vs. Union of India, 1994 (5) Supreme Court Cases 547 that injunction would not be issued against the true owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 308 - Full Document

Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013

17. Incidentally, the appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who had filed a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that he be declared owner in possession of the suit property as he 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:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 477 - A K Sikri - Full Document

T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006

In the case of T. Anjanappa 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 of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owner's title. Relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 577, para 20) rt "20. It is well-recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 303 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:54 :::HCHP 13 "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 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

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 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 of 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of rt 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,
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993

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 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 of 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of rt 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,
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 152 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

D.N. Venkatarayappa & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 July, 1997

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 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 of 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. Physical fact of rt 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,
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 202 - Full Document

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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:29:54 :::HCHP 14 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 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 379 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1