RAJNISH KUMAR
Gaya Prasad Yadav (Deceased) Thru. (Ram Sumer And Another) – Appellant
Versus
Ram Bux(Deceased) Thru. (Ishvar Deen) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard, Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nand Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1988, passed in Civil Appeal No.525 of 1982; Gaya Prasad and 3 others versus Ram Bux by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Faizabad and direct the respondent to not interfere into the possession of the appellants.
3. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated by the court in the second appeal:-
(ii) Whether the findings of the learned trial court are without consideration of evidence and perverse?”
4. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, by the respondent who had filed the Regular Suit No.79 of 1981(Ram Bux versus Gaya Prasad and others) is that the parties are resident of Village Sidhaura, Sahijauna, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. The land in dispute marked by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha in the plaint map belongs to the plaintiff i.e. the
Dagadabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives versus Abbas alia Gulab Rustum Pinjari; (2017) 13 SCC 705
Dalip Singh versus Bhupinder Kaur; (2018) 3 SCC 677
Dalip Singh Vs. Bhupinder Kaur
Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly and Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 85]
Jangi Singh versus Brij Mohan Singh and others;2012(30) LCD 2616
Kapil Kumar versus Raj Kumar; (2022) 10 SCC 281
Maharaj Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others;(1977) 1 SCC 155
Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others versus Manjit Kaur and others;(2019) 8 SCC 729
Shivah Balram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar (2018)11 SCC 652
State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal; (2008) 8 SCC 92
The court affirmed that land claimed as appurtenant must be essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the house, proven by long-term use, and clarified the distinctions between easementary rights and....
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
Permissive possession does not mature into adverse without hostile animus known to owner and proof of continuous, open denial of title for 12 years; no re-appreciation of concurrent factual findings ....
A landowner retains ownership of appurtenant land despite physical deterioration of the building, as possession based on historical claims and will documentation is recognized under relevant statutor....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.