SANDEEP N. BHATT
Lh Of Decd. Jaypalsinh Anupsinh Solanki – Appellant
Versus
Heirs Of Decd. Jyotindrasinhji Vikramsinhji Jadeja, Himanshusinhji Jyotindrasinhji Jadeja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC’ for short) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.12 of 2024 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Suit No.581 of 2002 is set aside, for the following substantial questions of law?
2. Whether the appeal can be allowed in absence of deposition of the plaintiff himself who is the executor of the power of attorney; as in the POA at Mark 21/9 in favour of Pruthvish S Parmar, it is specifically mentioned that plaintiff-Jyotindrasinhji Vikramsinhji Jadeja is doing administration of the suit property and when another POA holder, who is examined, has no personal knowledge abo
Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Karnataka Bard of Wakf V/s Government of India and Others reported in 2004(10) SCC 779
Man Kaur V/s Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju
Ram Nagina Rai And Another V/s Deo Kumar Rai (Deceased) By Legal Representatives and Another
S.Kesari Hanuman Gaud (supra) V/s Anjum Jehan and 2013(12) SCC 64
T.Anjanappa and Others V/s Somalingappa and Another reported in 2006(7) SCC 570
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) Adverse Possession – Mere long possession will not create any right by way of adverse possession – There should be element of definite refusal of right of ownership or title as well as hostile po....
A second appeal under CPC does not warrant interference when no substantial question of law arises, affirming the necessity of establishing ownership before claiming possession.
Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.