Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PRANAY VERMA
Bajesingh – Appellant
Versus
Seelabai – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission.
2. This appeal under section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendants 1 and 2 /appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.09.2022 passed in RCA No. 67 of 2019 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2019 passed in RCS No. 400026/2016 by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh whereby the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for possession of the suit land and permanent injunction had been decreed and their counter claim for declaration of title and permanent injunction had been dismissed.
3. As per the plaintiff she is the owner of the suit land and defendants 1 and 2 are her neighbors and have forcibly taken possession of the same. Defendants 1 and 2 had instituted an action in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II Narsinghgarh against her which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
Possession under an agreement to sell does not constitute adverse possession.
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.
Possession rights must be protected during title disputes in civil courts even if administrative proceedings are ongoing.
Possession must be actual, exclusive, and hostile to constitute adverse possession; mere long possession is insufficient.
A person in settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by the true owner without legal recourse, even if the title is disputed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove continuity and publicity of possession for adverse possession claims, as well as the necessity of a registered instrument ....
(1) Recovery of possession – Limitation – Suit based on title where plea of adverse possession had not been raised could not be barred by limitation on ground that it was filed after more than 12 yea....
The main legal point established is the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for hostile possession, open and continuous possession, and the burden of proof ....
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
Listen Article