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

S.P.KHARE
DILLI PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
RAMDAYAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Tiwari, for the Appellant; Manju Verma and Ku. K. Mehta, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

S.P. Khare, J.

This is Plaintiff's second appeal u/s 100, CPC Code. The following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 7-12-1987 at the time of admission of this appeal:-

Whether in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, the Defendant has rightly been held to have perfected his title by adverse possession?

It is not disputed that Khasra No. 52/2 area 1.25 acre of village Palia belongs to Plaintiff Dilliprasad. On the southern side of this field Khasra No. 52/3 area 1.23 acre belongs to Defendant Ramdayal who had purchased it in the year 1978 from Daulat Singh. There was an embankment, between these two fields.

The Plaintiff's case is that in the year 1979 he came to know that the Defendant had encroached upon 0.50 acre of land of his field Khasra No. 52/2. He got this land demarcated by making an application to the Tehsildar. The Revenue Inspector carried out the demarcation work on 27-12-1980 in the presence of the Defendant and confirmed that 0.50 acre of land of khasra No. 52/2 is in possession of the Defendant.

The Defendant has denied the encroachment of the land belonging to the Plaintiff. In the alternative he has set up the plea of adver










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