Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.71 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
P. Lakshmi Reddy vs L. Lakshmi Reddy on 5 December, 1956
10.4. The classical requirement of the adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precaro. The possession required must be adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent to show that the possession was adverse to the competitor. In case of the competitor being a co-heir, it is not enough to show that one was in sole possession and enjoyment of the property, but it must be shown that the possession was towards assertion of hostile title to the knowledge of the other co-heirs. The essential requirement has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, in the case of P.Lakshmi Reddy v. L.Lakshmi Reddy, reported in AIR 1957 SC 314, where-under it has been held as follows:-
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
10.6. The requirement to be proved by person claiming adverse possession has also been highlighted in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779, which runs as under:-
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Smt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors on 1 December, 1995
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 true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128).
10.7. So far as this case is concerned, this requirement is not fulfilled. Throughout, the case of the defendants is that, the property originally belonged to his father and later on, it was divided between two brothers and thus the defendants are exclusive owners of the property.
M/S Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs M/S Ramaniyam Real Estates P.Ltd.& Anr on 8 August, 2011
In support of the proposition, the decision reported in 2012 (1) MWN (Civil) 339 (Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v. Ramaniyam Real Estates P. Ltd.,) is relied upon.