Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BIBHU DATTA GURU
Lala Prasad (Died) Through Legal Heirs – Appellant
Versus
Safi Mohammed, S/o. Yusuf Mohammed Musalman – Respondent
Judgment :
Bibhu Datta Guru , J.
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 16/08/2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Kabirdham, Kawardha, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2004 (Shafi Mohammad Vs. Lalaprasad & Ors) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11/05/2001 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha, C.G. in Civil Suit No.13A/2001 [Lala Prasad Vs. Safi Mohammad & Ors] whereby the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent No.1 and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The instant appeal was admitted by this Court on 23.11.2005 on the following substantial question of law :
“1) Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the nature of possession of the plaintiff was permissive possession and not hostile is legally correct particularly, when the plaintiff was in possession of the property since 1977 on the strength of agreement to sale?"
ii) "Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in decre
Possession under a contract is not permissive if occupant asserts ownership; adverse possession requires clear hostility, which was lacking in this case.
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
The main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show adverse possession, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession and ownership based on an oral gift must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the burden of proof lies with....
(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....
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
