Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Matadin And Anr vs Om Parkash And Ors on 11 November, 2014 cites

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

22. A mere possession or permissive possession does not demonstrate spectrum of adverse possession. For claiming adverse possession, the defendants must prove that their possession, is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The possession should be actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous for the required time as provided in law. The necessary ingredients of adverse possession as enumerated in 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 702 tilted as Karnataka Board Wakf Vs. Government of India are that the adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. A party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario"
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

Smt. Harjit Grewal And Others vs Dr. Vinod Kumar Batra And Others on 16 April, 2009

In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has cited 2010 (2) PLR 235 titled Smt.Harjit Grewal and others vs. Dr.Vinod Kumar Batra and others. There cannot be any dispute on the aforesaid proposition of law. Question arises whether subject matter of all the issues are to be decided or issue-wise findings are to be given by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Since the trial court proceeded to club issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 and recorded the findings jointly, and thereafter remaining issues were also tested on the basis of findings recorded under issues No.1, 2 and 3, therefore, requirement of law in the considered opinion of this Court is that the subject matter of all the issues should be met properly by the learned Lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal. After recording finding of fact under issues No.1, 2 and 3, learned trial court took up individual issues No.4 to 7 and on the basis of findings recorded under issues No.1, 2 and 3 tested the veracity and scope of these issues, and ultimately, held that these issues are dependent upon the findings of issues No.1, 2 and 3 except issue No.6 which was not pressed by the defendants, and issue No.7 which was found to be against the defendants themselves because they were having conflicting interest in the property according to their pleadings. In view of the matter, the learned trial court based its conclusion solely on the basis of findings recorded under issues no.1, 2 and 3. Learned Lower Appellate Court endorsed the findings recorded under issues No.1, 2 and 3 in substantial part SACHIN SHARMA 2014.11.18 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1465 of 2012 9 of the judgment. In the concluding part i.e. in para No.34, the learned Lower Appellate Court has observed that the court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, and no illegality and perversity has been committed by the learned trial court while recording findings under all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. When the issues No.1, 2 and 3 were collectively decided by the learned trial court and the learned lower appellate court has also endorsed the same findings, it cannot be objected on this premise that issues no.1, 2 and 3 have not been decided by the learned lower appellate court. Since issue No.4 is totally dependent upon the failure of plea of adverse possession in the defence, therefore, this issue is also dependent on the finding recorded under issues No.1, 2 and 3. Issue No.5 is also related issue and its finding were totally dependent upon the finding recorded under issues No.1, 2 and 3, therefore, the finding on issues No.1, 2 and 3 which were upheld by the learned lower appellate court, covers the finding of issue no.5. Issue No.6 was not pressed before the learned trial court, therefore, learned lower appellate court is also justified in saying that no illegality and perversity has been committed by the learned trial court. Issue No.7 is related to inter se conflict between defendants No.1 and 2 on one hand and defendant No.3 on the other hand. Since defendant No.3 has not filed any Regular Second Appeal against the same judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court, therefore, in view of the matter, it has necessary bearing on the case of the appellant also. In a way the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court, have become final in view of no challenge having been made by defendant No.3.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1