Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)

Utha Moidu Haji vs Kuningarath Kunhabdulla And Ors on 30 November, 2006

In the present case, as defendant started claiming ownership of suit property on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 05.06.1993 (Ex.D1) and the said document is found to be void being unregistered on account of the fact that it purports to create tle in respect of an immovable property of value more than ₹100/-, therefore, the possession of the defendant became adverse from the very date of execu on of this document, in view of the legal posi on explained in Utha Moidu Hajii's case (supra). Said possession was open, con nuous and uninterrupted and became hos le to the true owner i.e., father of plain ff since 1993 upon execu on of Ex.D1 and then to the knowledge of the plain ff a er the death of his father in 1998, as defendant had started claiming to be owner of the suit property on basis of Ex.D1, an unregistered document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Qadir Bux vs Ramchand And Ors. on 19 March, 1969

32. Similarly, in Qadir Bux v. Ramchand and others, AIR 1970 Allahabad 289, the High Court has held that in order to a'ract Ar cle 65, if a person has got possession even if under a void sale, his possession would be adverse to the real owner and by possessing for more than 12 years, he acquires tle by adverse possession. Any ac on against him by real owner has to be filed within 12 years of such possession, otherwise suit for possession would be barred by limita on. For the purpose of a declara on, limita on commences from the date of cause of ac on. Similarly, for the purpose of restora on of possession, limita on would commence from the date from which one is dispossessed or the defendant's possession becomes adverse.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1