Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA
Asian Builders and Contractors – Appellant
Versus
Milind Narsing Swami – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ownership of the suit land (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. demands for vacating the suit land (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. issues framed by the trial court (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. plaintiffs' arguments against trial judge's findings (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. legal provisions on limitation (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. application of case law on adverse possession (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. trial judge's obligations in assessing evidence (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. outcome of the first appeal (Para 30) |
JUDGEMENT :
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.
1. The present Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 29th September, 2010 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in L.C. Suit No.1561 of 2006 whereby the Appellant’s suit was dismissed as being barred by limitation under Article 65 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963.
2. In this Judgement, the nomenclature of the parties will be as per their nomenclature in the Suit.
3. Before we consider the arguments of the Plaintiffs, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in this case.
4. The Plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owner of and/or sufficiently entitled to the land bearing Survey No.44, Hissa No.4, corresponding to CTS No. 468, of Vill
Defendants claiming adverse possession must prove such claims with clear evidence, as the burden lies with them, and mere long possession does not equate to ownership.
Point of law: Person raising plea of adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of true owner of relevant property to the knowledge of that owner. In the instant case, the defendan....
Point of Law : It is a well-settled principle of law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuou....
(1) Adverse Possession—Mere possession cannot be deemed to be adverse possession merely on the basis of denial of another’s title over property for that would be violative of basic rights of actual o....
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
Possession must be open, continuous, and adverse to establish adverse possession; failure to prove this invalidates claims of ownership.
Adverse possession requires the defendant to prove continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.
In property disputes, once a plaintiff proves title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession; failure to do so results in the plaintiff's claim being upheld.
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
