Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Jagdish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Dina Nath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 18-13 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.in Civil Suit No.476/1 of 2005.
2. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, which dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellants (defendants No. 2 to 4) against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had filed a suit seeking adecree for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-18 bighas comprised in khasra No. 266 (old khasra No. 1051/2), khewat No. 6 min, khatoni No. 8, situated in village Ladhyani, Pargna Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., by virtue of an agreement dated 8.6.1964 executed by Sh. Ram Ditta, son of Jai Mal, predecessor-in-interest of defend
Only a person aggrieved by a decree has the right to appeal, and judicial admissions can disqualify parties from claiming to be aggrieved.
Possession under an agreement to sell does not constitute adverse possession.
To establish adverse possession, one must prove continuous possession with animus possidendi; failure to demonstrate this negates such claims.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of continuous possession and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession in property disputes.
To establish adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove a hostile assertion of ownership, disclaiming the original title from a particular date, which was not accomplished her....
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
Findings of facts, unless shown to be perverse or suffering from grave illegality, cannot be interfered with in regular second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession claims must be supported by evidence and cannot contradict the findings of previous suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must fulfill the criteria of continuity, publicity, and extent, and the title acquired through adverse possession is encomp....
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming adverse possession, and the requirements of clear, continuous, and hostile possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act must be met.
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
