Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Mukhtiar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Shingara Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
These three Regular Second Appeals have arisen out of two judgments passed by the Courts below in two separate Civil Suits, on identical facts and involving same issues.
2.1 Plaintiffs in both the suits are common i.e. Mukhtiar Singh etc. (appellants of RSA N:1734-1990 & 1735-1990; respondents in RSA N: 1245-1990), who sought possession of the suit property on the basis of their title, by pleading unauthorized possession of the defendants. Civil Suit No.756 of 1985 was filed against Kartar Singh & Harnam Singh (appellants in RSA N:1245-1990) sons of Santa, claiming possession of 56 kanal 14 marla of land situated in Village Adhoya, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra; whereas Civil Suit No.806 of 1985 was filed against defendant Shingara Singh (respondent in RSA N: 1734-1990) claiming possession of land measuring 8 kanal situated in the same village Adhoya of Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
2.2 In both the suits, defendants resisted the claim, by contending to be in possession of the suit land and that they had become owner thereof by way of adverse possession. They, thus, denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed their own title by way of adverse
The court established that a claim of adverse possession is inconsistent with acknowledgment of another's title, affirming the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in possession disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession claims must be supported by evidence and cannot contradict the findings of previous suits.
The party claiming adverse possession must plead and prove open, peaceful, continuous possession without interruption, and denial of the true owner's rights for the prescribed period.
A claim of adverse possession can be established when the possessor has openly asserted ownership for 12 years without interruption, despite initial permissive circumstances.
Title claims and adverse possession are contradictory; plaintiffs must establish the timeline of possession with clear and consistent evidence to prevail in claims of adverse possession.
Possession must be hostile and express to establish adverse possession; mere long possession without knowledge of ownership does not suffice.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must fulfill the criteria of continuity, publicity, and extent, and the title acquired through adverse possession is encomp....
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming adverse possession, and the requirements of clear, continuous, and hostile possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act must be met.
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
