Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Rasu – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 08.07.2021 as passed by the learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. in C.A. No. 08/2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016, as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.2, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. have been affirmed whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for possession of the suit land was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Rohru, on 18.11.2011 for possession of the suit land. It was averred in the plaint that late Jamku, son of Late Jamalu, was the recorded owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 1042, area measuring 2-06 along with other pieces of land as the same was purchased by the deceased from one late Liaqui Ram, resident of Village Kindari. After the death of late Sh. Jamku, necessary mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of the plaintiff along with other co-sharers and the same is reflected in the jamaba
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....
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 ....
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.
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.
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
