Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Biranchi Narayan Tripathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's claim and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the plaintiff's claims and defendant’s opposition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court and appellate court outcomes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. requirements for adverse possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final judgment affirming lower court's decision. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the conforming judgment.
2. The suit of the Plaintiff vide T.S. No.73 of 2001 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.
4. The suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint has been continuing in the name of the State of Odisha (Defendant No.1) in all the settlements under Anabadi Khata. In the previous settlement prior to 1965, the kisam of the suit land was "Patra Jungle." The father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 i.e. Kashinath Tripathy made the suit land fit for cultivation by engaging manual labour after cutting the bushes from the same. Therefore, in the last settlement, R.O.R., the kisam of the suit land has been changed from "Patra Jungle" to "Atmamuli". During last settlement operation, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 had filed objection
Continuous possession alone does not establish adverse possession; clear proof of hostility and specific dates of possession are essential requirements.
A claim for title by adverse possession must be clearly pleaded with specific dates and evidence of denial of the true owner's title; mere long possession is insufficient.
Claims of occupancy rights and adverse possession cannot coexist; an encroacher is not entitled to injunctive relief against the rightful owner.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
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.
Claims related to adverse possession require explicit, clear evidence of continuous and hostile possession; mere long-term possession does not confer title without supporting legal criteria.
A claim for title through adverse possession requires proof of hostile possession, which was not established by the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal of their appeals.
A claim of title through adverse possession is inadmissible when a claimant asserts title through inheritance over the same property, as these claims are mutually exclusive.
Claiming adverse possession implies acknowledgment of the other party's title, and appellate courts must consider all evidence rather than rely solely on select reports.
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
