Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Kuttikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Suchetha, D/O. Prabhakaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for the appeal and history of possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding adverse possession and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on legal principles of adverse possession and interpretation of ext.b1. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. conclusion declaring the defendant's possession as permissive. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Easwaran S., J.
The plaintiff in OS No.27/2010 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Alathur, a suit for recovery of possession, has come up in the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings rendered against him.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff as item No.1 of D schedule to the partition deed No.754/1968 of SRO, Nenmara. Since one of the sharers had not signed the document, yet another document was executed in the year 1970 with the same stipulation. Thereafter, the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the meanwhile, the defendant preferred OS No.90/2009 before the
The court ruled that possession granted under a deed cannot constitute adverse possession as it lacks the requisite elements of hostility necessary to challenge the title of the original owner.
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
to approach the Civil Court for adjudicating the title in issue and when the defendant's patta had been cancelled during 1995 merely on the production of certain electricity bills and house tax recei....
A fresh suit for recovery of possession based on title after a partition decree is barred by Section 47 CPC; delivery is part of execution; adverse possession cannot defeat a decree holder where co-o....
The claim of title and plea of adverse possession cannot coexist. An unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes.
Ownership rights cannot exceed what is originally conveyed in property transactions, substantiating claims requires clear and convincing evidence.
Mere possession of land does not ripen into a possessory title. The possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. The requirement to prove hostility ....
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
