Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Ganesh Chand (Since Deceased) Through his LRs – Appellant
Versus
Kewal Krishan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RSA’ for short) is preferred by the appellant-defendant to impugn the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1988 rendered by the learned District Judge, Sangrur. By way of the aforementioned decree, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla, dated 04.09.1986, whereby the respondent-plaintiff’s suit for a mandatory injunction seeking possession or, in the alternative, a decree for possession was settled in favor of the respondent.
1.1. The appellant herein assails the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, contending that the impugned judgments are legally untenable and suffer from patent illegalities. It is further submitted that the findings are vitiated by material errors of fact and law, warranting the intervention of this Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
2. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is the lawful owner of the suit house, having purchased the same from Kafila Begum through a valid sale transaction. It is averred that the defendant, being the brother of the plaintiff, was permitted to occupy the suit
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....
Objections to the admissibility of evidence should be raised when the evidence is tendered and cannot be raised subsequently. The plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars an....
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
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....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars claims of benami ownership, and adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession, which must be specifically pleaded and proven.
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
