Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
Gurdev – Appellant
Versus
Todar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43) |
| 2. discussion on legal rights related to property ownership. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, dated 21.02.2013, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree, dated 31.05.2011, passed by learnedCivil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2006, was dismissed.
2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:
(a) Respondent-Shri Todar, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants (appellants herein). The plaintiff averred that land comprised in Khata No. 27, Khatauni No. 27, bearing Khasra No. 347/134 (new), measuring 4-03-13 bighas, situated in Mauza Chhol, H.B. No
Possession alone does not confer property title; it must be open, peaceful, and adverse to true owners for claim of adverse possession to succeed.
The claim of title and plea of adverse possession cannot coexist. An unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes.
Unregistered sale deeds admissible for collateral purposes like possession character under Registration Act Section 49; suit for possession barred by limitation where adverse possession established f....
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
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....
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 ....
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
