Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy VS Revamma...
2007 3 Supreme 751 : In a case where a plaintiff claims adverse possession over property that was previously purchased by another party, the key legal principle is that mere possession for a long period does not establish adverse possession unless there is a clear intention to dispossess the original owner. The court held that the appellant''''s possession, acquired through sale deeds after the respondent had already purchased 1 acre 21 guntas in 1933, could not amount to adverse possession because the appellant likely lacked the necessary intention to dispossess—especially if they were unaware of the prior sale. The court emphasized that intention to dispossess is essential and cannot be substituted by mere intention to possess. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has been in possession for over 50 years, adverse possession cannot be established without proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession with the specific intent to dispossess the rightful owner.Checking relevance for M. Radheshyamlal VS V. Sandhya...
2024 3 Supreme 244 : The plaintiff claimed adverse possession of the property, asserting continuous, open, and uninterrupted possession for 45 years starting from 1950, based on his and his father''''s possession after the original owner''''s death in 1947. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the plea of adverse possession because he did not establish when his possession began, whether it was known to the true owner, or that it was truly adverse and open. The court emphasized that a party claiming adverse possession must plead and prove all ingredients, including that possession was ''''nec vi, nec clam, nec precario'''' (peaceful, open, and continuous), and that the factum of possession was known to the true owner. The High Court and Trial Court both held that the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, and the appeals were dismissed. The defendants were found to have better title than the plaintiff, who was deemed a trespasser. Therefore, the claim of adverse possession was rejected despite the plaintiff''''s assertion of long-term possession.Checking relevance for Neelam Gupta VS Rajendra Kumar Gupta...
Checking relevance for Brijesh Kumar VS Shardabai (Dead) by LRs. ...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1128 : The plaintiff claimed adverse possession over the suit lands from 1960-1961. However, the lands were sold to Urmila Devi by registered sale deed before the expiry of 12 years on 11.10.1972, and she was put in possession. The court held that the plaintiff never came into possession, and the claim of uninterrupted possession for twelve years was unsustainable. The onus to prove adverse possession lies on the plaintiff, which they failed to discharge. The Khasra entries in red ink showing possession of the plaintiff were found to be suspicious, based on fraud and forgery, and thus irrelevant. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established hostile, open, continuous, and undisturbed possession for the statutory period, and therefore failed to prove adverse possession.Checking relevance for Ravinder Kaur Grewal VS Manjit Kaur...
Checking relevance for Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. VS Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. ...
Checking relevance for Punjab State Electricity Board VS Pushwinder Kaur @ Pushpinder Kaur (died) Through LRs...
Checking relevance for Tarun Kumar Naik S/o Dr. Radhe Shyam Naik VS Prafull Maheshwari S/o Dr. Late Dungarmal Maheshwari...
2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 450 : The plaintiff claimed to have come into possession of the suit property in 1983 after a mutual partition, but failed to plead or prove essential elements of adverse possession, including the date when possession became adverse, whether the factum of possession was known to the defendants, and animus possidendi. The plaintiff did not provide documentary evidence such as revenue records to establish his possession, while the defendants produced revenue records showing their own possession. Witnesses for the defendants stated they were cultivating paddy, gram, and wheat on the property. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients for adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, and hostility, and thus could not claim title based on adverse possession despite allegedly purchasing the property.Checking relevance for Arjanbhai Talshibhai VS State of Gujarat...
2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 923 : A claim of adverse possession cannot succeed if the plaintiff has not established hostile possession against the true owner. The courts have held that mere possession, even if long-term, does not amount to adverse possession without clear evidence of hostility and denial of the true owner''''s title. The possession must be open, continuous, and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner, and the possessor must have the animus possidendi (intention to hold as owner) to exclude the true owner. Additionally, if the plaintiff claims ownership through a sale agreement, that claim is invalid unless the sale is registered under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and an unregistered agreement does not confer ownership. The courts have emphasized that a person claiming adverse possession must prove by clear and unequivocal evidence that their possession was hostile to the true owner and amounted to a denial of the title, and that the possession was open, continuous, and known to the true owner. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove such hostility or registered documentation, and thus the claim of adverse possession was not tenable.
