Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
Neelamma W/o Late M. Veerappa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Venkataswamy Reddy S/o Late Muniyappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant Nos.3(a) to 3(e) challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.108/1992 by the Court of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and holding concurrent charge of Court of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short] whereby, the reference filed under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC Act' for short) is partly allowed by holding that claimant No.1(a) and claimant No.2(e) are entitled to receive the corresponding compensation amount and rejected the claim of claimant Nos.3(a) to 3(e).
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The respondent Nos.20 and 21 in this appeal, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court i.e., the Special LAO for Defence and the Estate Officer, Defence have acquired the land measuring 3 acres 24 guntas of land in survey No.162/1 and 2 acres 09 guntas of land in survey No.163/2, totally measuring 5 acres 33 guntas of
Persons asserting ownership by adverse possession must demonstrate continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession, while failure to establish these elements invalidates claims.
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold ....
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
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
