also plead that C.Guruviah Chetty and his legal heirs acquired prescriptive title over the suit property by their long enjoyment and possession for more ... propositus and the vendors in Exs.A5 and A6 acquired prescriptive title over the suit property and accordingly sold the property in favour
such persons would clarify and settle the legal position relating to prescriptive title.
10. Be that as it may. The cumulative reading ... immovable property over the statutory period to prove that he acquired prescriptive title over it by his long uninterrupted, open and hostile possession as owner
without any interruption from any source. Thus, the plaintiffs have got prescriptive title by adverse possession also.
4.2. Recognising the title and possession, the natham ... been filed. The first appellate court has considered the issue regarding prescriptive title of the plaintiffs by adverse possession. It is pointed by the learned
year 1980 onwards and therefore, the defendant would be entitled to prescriptive title through adverse possession since he was admittedly in possession against the alleged ... year 1980, was also entitled to the suit property through prescriptive title by adverse possession in the event, the defendant was not found
that too, even though the defendants have acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession by their long and continuous enjoyment for over four decades.
(d) Whereas ... plaintiffs cannot plead prescription and those are all coming within the public domain relating to which simply prescriptive title cannot be claimed.
(b) There
defendants did not prove their title. Their claim for prescriptive title for possession is not proved since there are only two transactions
have been in adverse possession of the property and acquired title
by prescription is factually incorrect and legally untenable. It is
urged that the adjudication ... never asserted
title against the real owner. The submission is that consequently,
there is no questions of acquisition of title by prescription
dismissed the suit by rendering a finding that the defendants acquired title by prescription and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to get the suit ... lower court committed error in holding that the defendants acquired prescriptive title over the suit property and accordingly decreed the suit.
g] Challenging and impugning
Section 34 as
periods of limitation, the expiry of which grant
prescriptive title to defaulting tax-payers It may be said
that an assessment once
what I could see is, that an individual could also acquire prescriptive title over gramanatham land by virtue of the principle nec vi nec clam
