Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Pitamber – Appellant
Versus
Ram Milan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard, Sri Raghav Ram Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The instant second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1985 passed in Regular Suit No.304 of 1982 by Munsif Hawali, Faizabad now Ayodhya and judgment and decree dated 14.05.1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1985 by VIth Additional District Judge, Faizabad, now Ayodhya.
3. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in this second appeal:-
(2) Whether mere use of the land is sufficient to hold that the land had been settled under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act?
(3) Whether essementary right and the adverse possession can be pleaded together and if not the suit is liable to be rejected?
(4) Whether the land lying after the public path and not adjoining the house of the plaintiff
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....
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....
The appellate court can reverse trial court findings and consider all evidence in a permanent injunction suit, even after confirming some findings, if the trial court inadequately assessed the eviden....
Possession established prior to the abolition of zamindari can confer rights under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, regardless of the validity of an unre....
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 ....
The First Appellate Court must comply with procedural requirements and evaluate evidence from both parties; failure to do so renders its findings perverse.
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....
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....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
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
