Back
L.NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA
Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. – Respondent
Key Points: - Mere long possession, without hostility to the true owner, does not ripen into title; required elements include hostility (animus possidendi) and denial of the true owner's title (!) (!) (!) - Adverse possession requires three classical ingredients: adequate continuity, adequacy of publicity, and adverse to a competitor in denial of title, with animus possidendi being crucial; possession must be nec vi nec clam nec precario (!) (!) (!) - A plea of adverse possession must be based on clear pleadings and proven with evidence showing possession, knowledge of the true owner, duration, and open/undisturbed nature; possession referred to lawful title or on behalf of another cannot constitute adverse possession (!) (!) (!) - The Constitution Bench and cited judgments reiterate that adverse possession is founded on acceptance that ownership vests in another and requires hostile possession; mere continuous possession without hostility cannot defeat title (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi on 18th February, 2011 whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4th January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17th February, 1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
3. The defendants in the written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants asserted that their house existed on the property in question for more than the last two centuries. The grandfather of the defendants was said to be in possession of the property as owner, thereafter their father one Tara Chand and now all the defendants are in possession of the property as owners. It was denied that the pro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
