Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.29 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi
(1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of
Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567.) 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,
Section 103 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003
30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse
possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a
requisite animus the period for prescription does not com mence.
As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his
possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical
corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd.
Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21.)"
The Limitation Act, 1963
Saroop Singh vs Banto & Ors on 7 October, 2005
35. The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this
Court in Saroop Singh v. Banto and Others [(2005) 8 SCC 330]
stating:
Vasantiben P. Nayak & Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak & Ors on 9 March, 2004
"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 defendants
possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak
v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)