Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
9. The requirements of law governing the proof of adverse possession are elucidated in the decision reported in (2007) 6 SCC 59 (P.T.Munichikkanna reddy and others Vs. Revamma and others) as follows:
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
S.M.Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254; Saroop Singh V.Banto, (2005)8SCC 330; M.Durai Vs.Muthu, (2007) 3 SCC 114: (2007) 2 Scale 309; Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh V.Abdulla Kasambhai Sheikh, (2004) 13 SCC 385; T.Anjanappa V.Somalingappa, (2006)7SCC 570; Des Raj V. Bhagat Ram, (2007)9SCC 641:(2007)3Scale 371; Govindammal v.R.Perumal Chettiar, (2006)11SCC 600, relied on Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak V.Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004)3SCC 376; Mohd.Mohd.Ali V.Jagadish Kalita, (2004)1SCC 271;Mahomedally Tyebally V.Safiabai (1939-40)67IA406: AIR 1940 PC 215, cited
Inquiry into the starting point of adverse possession i.e.dates as to when the paper-owner got dispossessed is an important aspect to be considered. In the instant case the starting point of adverse possession and other facts such as the manner in which the possession operationalised, nature of possession:whether open, continuous, uninterrupted or hostile possession, have not been disclosed.
Des Raj & Ors vs Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 20 February, 2007
S.M.Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254; Saroop Singh V.Banto, (2005)8SCC 330; M.Durai Vs.Muthu, (2007) 3 SCC 114: (2007) 2 Scale 309; Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh V.Abdulla Kasambhai Sheikh, (2004) 13 SCC 385; T.Anjanappa V.Somalingappa, (2006)7SCC 570; Des Raj V. Bhagat Ram, (2007)9SCC 641:(2007)3Scale 371; Govindammal v.R.Perumal Chettiar, (2006)11SCC 600, relied on Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak V.Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004)3SCC 376; Mohd.Mohd.Ali V.Jagadish Kalita, (2004)1SCC 271;Mahomedally Tyebally V.Safiabai (1939-40)67IA406: AIR 1940 PC 215, cited
Inquiry into the starting point of adverse possession i.e.dates as to when the paper-owner got dispossessed is an important aspect to be considered. In the instant case the starting point of adverse possession and other facts such as the manner in which the possession operationalised, nature of possession:whether open, continuous, uninterrupted or hostile possession, have not been disclosed.
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
In this connection, the appellant's counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 2008 SCC 2033 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs and Ors.) 2014 (2) CTC 421 (Ratna Kounder Vs.Annamalai and others) wherefrom, it could be seen that, when the appellant has categorically disputed the title of the respondent as regards the disputed portion and despite the same, the respondent having not cared to amend her plaint and include the relief of declaration as regards the disputed portion and continue to prosecute the suit only for bare injunction, it is found that the suit laid by the respondent for bare injunction simpliciter is not maintainable, in the light of the principles enunciated in the above said decisions.
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dhanabaghyam Ammal (Died) vs Dhanavel on 31 January, 2011
8. It has to be therefore seen that whether the Courts below were justified in upholding the plea of adverse possession projected by the respondent as regards the disputed extent of 0.37 cents in the suit survey number. The documents projected by the respondent by way of kist receipts, patta are found to have emanated only from 1985 onwards and similarly, adangal extract and chitta extract projected by the respondent marked as Exs.B16 to B21 are found to be of recent origin. Most of the documents produced are found to have been secured after the institution of the suit. It is thus found that from and out of the said documents, we cannot safely conclude that the respondent has been in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the disputed extent of 0.37cents in the suit survey number to the knowledge of one and all, particularly, the defendant, by exhibiting animus attitude, so as to seek the relief of adverse possession. On the other hand, it is found that the Courts below seem to have proceeded on the premise that inasmuch as the respondent had claimed to have purchased an extent of 2.90 acres by way of sale deed dated 12.06.1967 marked as Ex.B1, she would have been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed extent of 0.37 cents also continuously, since, the said date, adversely to the knowledge of the appellant and thereby upheld her plea of adverse possession. However, as rightly contended by the appellant's counsel, the Courts below had failed to appreciate the principles of law in the right perspective governing the essential ingredients for establishing the plea of adverse possession. As per the decisions relied upon by the appellant's counsel reported in (2007) 6 SCC 59 (P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy and others Vs. Revamma and others) and 2011-1-LW.1014 (Dhanabaghyam ammal (died) and others Vs. Dhanavel and others) for determining the concept of adverse possession putforth by the parties, the possession must be open, continuous and hostile and there must be a positive animus and intention to dispossess the owner and in such view of the matter, the person claiming the title by way of adverse possession should plead and establish as to the starting point of adverse possession i.e., the date of dispossession of the owner and in the absence of the same, mere long possession by itself would not amount to adverse possession and the person pleading the adverse possession must plead that he or she had been in possession of the property in dispute with the required animus to the knowledge of the real owner.
1