Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Taramani Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
Rebati Pallai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the second appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of the suit and claims (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendants' counterclaims and arguments against the plaintiffs (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. issues framed by the trial court (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. evidence presented by both parties (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. second appeal grounds and issues for determination (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. discussion of substantial questions of law (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. defendants' claims of adverse possession and its implications (Para 16 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. final verdict dismissing the appeal (Para 25 , 26) |
Judgment :
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.
The predecessors of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal i.e. Prahallad Chandra Palai was the sole Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019.
3. According to the suit of the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 before the learned Trial Court against the Defendants (Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for eviction, realization of arrear rent, in alternative declaration of title and recovery of possession.
He (Plaintiff) constructed houses on
A suit for possession remains maintainable even if the landlord-tenant relationship is not proven, while claims of adverse possession require proof of hostile possession, which was not established.
Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the claim.
The appellants' possession of the suit property is the settled possession and it has to be protected until they are evicted by due process of law. The respondent had lost the right to claim declarati....
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.
to approach the Civil Court for adjudicating the title in issue and when the defendant's patta had been cancelled during 1995 merely on the production of certain electricity bills and house tax recei....
Establishing adverse possession requires clear, unambiguous evidence of hostile intent and disclosure of all necessary details; mere long possession without asserting hostile rights does not suffice.
The court upheld prior judgments affirming ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship, rejecting claims of adverse possession and ownership through will as legally insufficient.
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
