Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HAZARA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
JIWAN RAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellants–defendants to assail the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the findings returned by the trial Court were unreservedly affirmed. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.05.1990 rendered by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Rajpura, had decreed the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for possession. The appellants now question the concurrent findings of both Courts below, asserting that the same are legally untenable and factually perverse.
2. At the very outset, it is asserted with utmost clarity that the plaintiff/respondent predicates his claim on his lawful ownership and possession of the suit property, which is as under:-
“In the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent averred that the defendants/appellants had earlier attempted to dispossess him forcibly, compelling him to institute a suit for permanent injunction wherein an ad interim injunction was duly granted. Nevertheless, during the pendency of that suit, and specifically when the matter stood posted for evidence, the defendants/appe
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....
When there is a denial of title or a challenge raising a cloud, parties should file a suit for declaration of title, and adverse possession requires hostile possession denying the true owner's title.
Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.
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....
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
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
