Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.43 seconds)Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. 38 ... on 22 January, 2018
30. It has been held in Secy. Of State for India in
Council V. Devendra Lal Khan (A.I.R. 1934 PC 23) that the
ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it
should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario.
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board
of Wakf Vs. Govt of India & Ors. (2004 (10) SCC 779) held
that Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly
asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is
Patna High Court SA No.113 of 2005 dt.24-01-2023
16/21
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 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.
Tulsi & Ors vs Chandrika Prasad. & Ors on 24 August, 2006
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi &
Ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 3359)
observed that :
Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi And Ors on 5 January, 2016
40. It is well settled that the concurrent findings of
fact by the Courts below are binding upon the second appellate
court unless the findings are shown or established to be
perverse. Elaborating the concept of perversity in context of a
finding of fact, the apex court in the case of Damodar Lal Vs.
Sohan Devi & Ors. (2016) 2 S.C.C. 262 has ruled as follows:-
Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal on 13 November, 2013
In Tribhuwanshankar vs. Amrutlal (2014) 2 SCC
788, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the conception of
adverse possession fundamentally contemplates a hostile
Patna High Court SA No.113 of 2005 dt.24-01-2023
15/21
possession by which there is a denial of title of the true owner.
By virtue of remaining in possession the possessor takes an
adverse stance to the title of the true owner. It fact, he disputes
the same. A mere possession or user or permissive possession
does not remotely come near the spectrum of adverse
possession. Possession to the adverse has to be actual, open,
notorious, exclusive and continuous for the requisite frame of
time as provided in law so that the possessor perfects his title by
adverse possession.