Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Gaon Sabha – Appellant
Versus
B. R. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
(Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2022 filed in Writ (B) No. 16410 of 1984)
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Delay in filing the recall application is condoned.
(Re: Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 3 of 2022 filed in Writ (B) No. 16410 of 1984)
Cause shown for filing recall application is sufficient.
Recall application is allowed.
Order dated 08.03.2011, whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, is recalled.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
Order on Petitions
1. Heard Mr. Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondents and Mr. Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondents.
2. In the present case it is undisputed that the original respondent no. 5 has suffered an order of eviction under Rule 115C of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms, Rules, 1952.
3. The challenge thereof for eviction from the property in suit at the behest of the said respondent, before the Board of Revenue, was unsuccessful.
4. The present proceedi
The necessity of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals is mandated, and mere long-term possession does not equate to adverse possession without requisite proofs of hostility.
Adverse Possession – Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant right of adverse possession on its own – Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve basis for ....
Adverse possession requires proof of open, continuous, and hostile possession with the necessary animus, which the petitioner failed to establish.
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold ....
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....
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
