Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Annakili vs A. Vedanayagam & Ors on 12 October, 2007
25. It is settled by the catena of legal precedents that
animus possidendi to hold the property adverse to the title of the
true owner must be shown to exist at the commencement of the
possession. The starting point of limitation to take shelter under
Article 65 of the Limitation Act to a contender of adverse
31 O.S.No.5226/2011
possession does not commence from the date when the right of
ownership arises to the plaintiff, but only commences from the
date the defendant's possession become adverse. Therefore, in
the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Annakili v/s A. Vedanayagam and others (2007)14 SCC 308
referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
hereunder:-
Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993
"30. In Karnataka Board of Wakf, the law was
stated, thus:(SCCp.785,para11)
'11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be
deemed to be in possession of a property so long as
there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the
owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But
the position will be altered when another person
takes possession of the property and asserts a right
over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession
by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of
the true owner. It is 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina,
Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State
of Karnataka). Physical fact of exclusive possession
and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in
exclusion to the actual owner are the most important
25 O.S.No.5226/2011
factors that are to be accounted in case of this
nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure
question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Therefore, 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 factum of possession
was known to the other party, (d) how long his
possession has continued, and (e) his possession
was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
adverse possession has no equities in his favour.
Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true
owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish
all facts necessary to establish his adverse
possession' ".
D.N. Venkatarayappa & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 July, 1997
"30. In Karnataka Board of Wakf, the law was
stated, thus:(SCCp.785,para11)
'11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be
deemed to be in possession of a property so long as
there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the
owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But
the position will be altered when another person
takes possession of the property and asserts a right
over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession
by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of
the true owner. It is 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina,
Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State
of Karnataka). Physical fact of exclusive possession
and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in
exclusion to the actual owner are the most important
25 O.S.No.5226/2011
factors that are to be accounted in case of this
nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure
question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Therefore, 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 factum of possession
was known to the other party, (d) how long his
possession has continued, and (e) his possession
was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
adverse possession has no equities in his favour.
Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true
owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish
all facts necessary to establish his adverse
possession' ".
Sri Uttam Chand (D) Th Lrs . vs Nathu Ram (D) Thr. Lrs. on 15 January, 2020
In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff has strongly placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Uttam Chand
(Dead) by LRs v/s Nathu Ram (Dead) by Lrs (2020)11 SCC 263
wherein the plaintiff had purchased the property in a public
auction on 21.03.1964 and sale certificate was issued to him on
04.01.1965. He had instituted a suit for possession on
17.02.1979, alleging that the defendants are in unauthorised
occupation of the property. In the said suit, though the court had
recorded a finding that the defendant who was in possession of
the suit schedule property even prior to the date of public auction,
still the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the period of
limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act 1963 cannot start from
the date of the purchase of the suit property. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically observed that mere possession
of land however long it may be would not ripe into possessory
title, unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land
adverse to the title of the true owner and therefore, the assertion
29 O.S.No.5226/2011
of the title must be clear and uneqivocal. In a similar case, the
Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in the case of
Radheshyam Pathak (dead) through legal representatives v/s
Smt.Usha Mishra and others 2021 SCC OnLine Chhattisgarh
2157 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
also negated the contention of the party that the suit should have
been filed within 12 years from the date of the sale deed holding
that when the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule
property, it was for the defendant to establish the plea of adverse
possession which they have half heartedly taken and did not
plead the essential ingredients of possession in the following
words:-
Saroop Singh vs Banto & Ors on 7 October, 2005
In Saroop Singh vs Banto in which one
of us was a member, this Court held: (SCC p.340,
paras 29-30)
"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point
of limitation does not commence from the date
when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff
but commences from the date the defendant's
possession becomes adverse.