SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(MP) 202

P.D.MULYE, P.K.VIJAYVARGIYA, G.G.SOHANI
KASHIRAM – Appellant
Versus
NATHU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.M.MATHUR, K.B.Joshi, S.G.GOKHALE

VIJAYWAKGIYA, J.

( 1 ) THE questions referred for the opinion of the Full Bench are as follows:--

(1) Whether the rights of a Bhumiswami can be extinguished by dispossession when he is out of possession for more than twelve years?

(2) Whether a person in possession in his own rights and adverse to the recorded Bhumiswami can claim the rights of a Bhumiswami acquired by adverse possession?

( 2 ) THE agricultural land-in-suit is situated in village Palia Haider. This village formed part of the erstwhile Holkar State. The suit land is recorded in the name of the defendant-appellant as the Bhumiswami thereof. Initially the suit land was recorded in the name of the deceased Gopal father of the appellant. Gopal filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 32 of 1944) against the present respondents for possession of the suit land. This suit was dismissed on 30-11-1945. The respondents continued in possession of the suit land since then. In the year 1965 the present suit was filed by the respondents against the appellant for declaration that they have acquired rights of Bhumiswami by adverse possession and therefore were entitled to have their names mutated in place of the appellant as the Bhumiswami of the






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top