SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 921

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
Neelam Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Gupta – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Mrs. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Mrs. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the scope of pleadings in civil disputes and the admissibility of evidence that contradicts pleadings?

What is the correct test and starting point for adverse possession claims where title is established in favor of a plaintiff?

What are the legal requirements to prove and oppose adverse possession (animus possidendi, continuity, publicity) in the context of disputed property transfers?


JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The legal representatives of original defendant No.1 viz., appellant Nos. 1 to 3 herein and original defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No.195A/95, are in appeal against the judgment dated 11.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Second Appeal No.401/2003, reversing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below and the consequently, drawn decree dated 25.07.2014.

2. The facts, in succinct, that led to the impugned judgment and decree are as follows:-

    “Respondent No.1 herein viz., Rajendra Kumar Gupta filed Civil Suit No.195A/95 (evidently, renumbered) admittedly on 24.12.1986, against the original defendants, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta for recovery of possession of suit schedule property based on title besides claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10,500/- and future damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per acre and for costs. It was averred that he purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 7.60 acres comprised in Khasra No.867/1 of Mowa village in Tehsil and District Raipur, as per registered sale deed dated 04.06.1968 from one Late Sh. Sitaram Gupta, who was the common cousin of himself and the original defend

                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                            1
                            2
                            3
                            4
                            5
                            6
                            7
                            8
                            9
                            10
                            11
                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                            supreme today icon
                            logo-black

                            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

                            qr

                            Scan Me!

                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                            whatsapp-icon Back to top