Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Mohini Devi W/o Shri Pankaj Kumar Dubey – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018 (Decree signed on 26.06.2018) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Chatra in Civil Appeal No.08 of 2012 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside. The judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 (Decree signed on 14.03.2012) was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Chatra in Title Suit No.03 of 2001 whereby the suit was allowed and decreed on contest.
3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 23.07.2024 and the following substantial questions of law were framed:
(i) Whether both the courts below have committed perversity in declaring the title of the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession against the State of Jharkhand, even though the essential ingredients to establish their title by way of adverse possession, was neither pleaded nor proved, by the plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether both the courts below have committed perversity by failing to consider that in the year 1942, no ward of Encumbered Estate was in existence as the same ended in t
A claim of adverse possession requires foundational pleading; courts cannot consider arguments raised outside of established pleadings.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.
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 ....
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the claim.
A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.
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
