Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
17. 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
factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his
possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and
undisturbed 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 inter alia observed as under: (SCC p. 785, para 11)
"11. Xxxxx Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus
possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the
most important factors that are to be accounted in cases 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."
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
16. Article 144 of the schedule of Limitation Act, 1908 which
was the law of limitation which was holding the field before enactment
of the Limitation Act, 1963, is definitely in pari meteria with Article 65 of
the schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 but Article 142 of the Limitation Act,
1908 entails the burden of proving the dates of dispossession or
discontinuation of the possession upon the plaintiffs who in order to
succeed must show that the dispossession or discontinuation of
possession was not prior to 12 years before the suit was filed but there is
no difference in law regarding the ingredients to be put forth by the
person claiming adverse possession right from Perry vs. Clisshold
(supra) up to Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others vs. Manjit Kaur &
Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 paragraph-60 of which reads as
under:-