Back
HIRDESH
Babulal S/o Thawarji – Appellant
Versus
Amra S/o Heeraji – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Agar, District Shajapur (now Agar Malwa) in Regular Civil Appeal No. RCA 45-A/2019 allowing the first appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Civil Judge, Class-I, Agar, District Agar Malwa in Civil Suit No. 28-A/16 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants with regard tot he suit property.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.12.2015 appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants regarding suit property agricultural land survey no. 362 area 1.61 hectare (Old survey no. 216/2 area 1.615 hectare) situated at village Gangadhadda Tehsil and district Agar-Malwa. It is further pleaded that plaintiff's brother Ruggaji purchased the suit land from Heera S/o Khumanji on 18.01.1994 and on this day Heeraji executed an agreement and delivered possession of the suit land to Ruggaji. After the death of Ruggaji appellant was
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.
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....
Possession must be actual, exclusive, and hostile to constitute adverse possession; mere long possession is insufficient.
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
Plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both are contrary to each other and plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take both pleas at the same time.
Possession under an agreement to sell does not constitute adverse possession.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
The requirement of compulsory registration for the sale of land for consideration of more than Rs.100.00 and the inability to claim ownership and adverse possession simultaneously.
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
