Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Prem Singh @ Durga Dass – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history: suit for possession affirmed by lower courts. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. parties contend over title, adverse possession, and limitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. plaintiff proved title; defendant failed to substantiate possession claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. adverse possession requires hostile, open, continuous denial of owner's title. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. title and adverse possession pleas mutually destructive; permissive not adverse. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. no interference in second appeal with concurrent factual findings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. appeal dismissed; decree for vacant possession upheld. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present regular second appeal arises out of judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 6th November, 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 22nd June, 2022 has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/responden
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 ....
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....
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
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....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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.
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....
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
