Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Lokha Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions of the parties regarding possession (Para 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 3. court's analysis on evidence and findings (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. legal standards for interference in appeals (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. final decision on the appeal (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree as passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 31.08.2017, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.III, dated 01.12.2015, whereby the suit filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed, have been affirmed.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit under Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for possession of land comprised in Khasra No.1181/1 and 1181/2, measuring 17.60 and 11.44 Sq Mts. respectively, total measuring 29.04 Sq Mts. against the defendant/respondent.
3. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant is the real uncle (chacha) of the plaintiffs and in the year 2000-2001, h
Possession claims must be substantiated with evidence; the mere existence of an old agreement without action does not support a claim for possession after significant delay.
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
Permissive possession does not mature into adverse without hostile animus known to owner and proof of continuous, open denial of title for 12 years; no re-appreciation of concurrent factual findings ....
The court discussed the legal principles related to the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and law.
The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.
Second appeals under CPC S.100 do not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings upheld absent perversity or substantial question of law. Adverse possession claim fails without rebutting....
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
