Back
HIRDESH
Sirajuddin, S/o. Shri Kutubuddin – Appellant
Versus
Saidani Begum, WD/o. Late Shri Dilawarhussain, D/o. Shri Nazmuddin – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Burhanpur whereby first appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Burhanpur in Civil Suit No.12-A/2014 dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction by way of adverse possession.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect of agricultural land situated over Survey No.487/1, 487/3 & 487/4, area 0.37, 1.50 & 0.37 hectares situated in village Jainabad, District Burhanpur (hereafter referred to as the "suit land"). The suit lands were owned by Kutubuddin and Nazmuddin, who were real brothers. Nazmuddin had given land owned by him to his brother-Kutubuddin by way of Hiba i.e. oral gift. Subsequently, the same was reduced in writing on 21.3.1980. Kutubuddin was in possession of entire land i.e. land of Nazamuddin. Therefore, Kutubuddin became absolute owner of land owned and possessed by both the
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of peaceful and uninterrupted possession to establish adverse possession, as well as the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65.
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must fulfill the criteria of continuity, publicity, and extent, and the title acquired through adverse possession is encomp....
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.
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....
The claimant must establish continuous, open, and peaceful possession to prove adverse possession, which the court found unmet in this case.
Title claims and adverse possession are contradictory; plaintiffs must establish the timeline of possession with clear and consistent evidence to prevail in claims of adverse possession.
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
