Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
22. It is also a settled principle of law that a person who claims
adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into
possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the
16
Second Appeal No. 278 of 2009
factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his
possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and
undisturbed as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government. of India & Others
(2004) 10 SCC 779, paragraph no.11 of which has already been quoted in
the foregoing paragraphs in the judgment.
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
12. A plaintiff filing a title suit should be very clear
about the origin of title over the property. He must
specifically plead it. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi
Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254] .)
P.Periasami (Dead) By Lrs vs P. Periathambi And Others on 11 October, 1995
In P. Periasami v. P.
Periathambi [(1995) 6 SCC 523] this Court ruled that:
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually
inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate
until the former is renounced. Dealing with Mohan
Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar [(1996) 1 SCC 639] that is
similar to the case in hand, this Court held: (SCC pp.
640-41, para 4)
"4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent
with the second plea. Having come into
possession under the agreement, he must
disclaim his right thereunder and plead and
prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse
possession to the knowledge of the transferor or
his successor in title or interest and that the
latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession
during the entire period of 12 years i.e. up to
completing the period his title by prescription nec
vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's
claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without
saying that he admits by implication that he came
into possession of land lawfully under the
agreement and continued to remain in possession
till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse
possession is not available to the appellant."
V.Prabhakara vs Basavaraj K. (Dead) By Lr. on 7 October, 2021
14. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the appellants
7
Second Appeal No. 278 of 2009
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 115, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
observed in paragraph no.20 and 21 as under:-
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
In T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa [T. Anjanappa v.
Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570] , this Court held that
mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not
necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and
the classical requirement of acquisition of title by
adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial
of the true owners' title."
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
21. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that it is a settled principle of law that adverse possession requires all the
three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, adequate
in continuity, adequate in publicity and adverse to a competitor, in
denial of title and his knowledge moreover Animus possidendi under
hostile colour of title is also required; as has been observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal &
Others vs. Manjit Kaur & Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729
paragraph-60 of which reads as under:-