Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sheodhari Rai VS Suraj Prasad Singh...
Checking relevance for Nazir Mohamed VS J. Kamala...
Checking relevance for L. N. Aswathama VS P. Prakash...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 793 : Permissive possession cannot constitute adverse possession. Adverse possession requires physical, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for more than twelve years. Merely long and continuous possession does not amount to adverse possession if it is permissive or lacks animus possidendi (intention to possess as an owner). The pleas of title and adverse possession are mutually exclusive, and a person claiming permissive possession cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession unless they renounce the permissive claim. In this case, the defendant''''s claim of being a tenant from 1962 was found to be permissive, and this undermined his claim to adverse possession, especially since he failed to prove hostile possession for the requisite period.Checking relevance for Government Of Kerala VS Joseph...
2023 5 Supreme 689 : Permissive possession cannot become adverse possession without clear and cogent evidence demonstrating hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner. Mere possession for any length of time, including permissive possession, does not automatically convert into adverse possession. The possession must be peaceful, open, continuous, and accompanied by animus possidendi—the intention to hold as owner in exclusion of the true owner. This principle is reinforced by multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, where it was held that permissive possession requires ''''cogent and convincing evidence'''' to show hostile animus before it can be considered adverse. Similarly, in L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash, it was stated that permissive possession or possession in the absence of animus possidendi would not constitute a claim of adverse possession.Checking relevance for State of Haryana VS Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs...
2024 8 Supreme 659 : Permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession. The court explicitly held that the appellants'''' possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional, described as ''''Bikhar Bahali Kaza'''' (till the existence of an orchard), and therefore could not amount to adverse possession. The court emphasized that adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period, and that permissive possession lacks the essential element of hostility.Checking relevance for Jose Da Costa VS Bascora Sadashiva Sinai Narcornim...
1976 0 Supreme(SC) 166 : The document explicitly states that permissive possession cannot lead to adverse possession. It clarifies that possession under a permissive title (such as ''''detencao'''') lacks the necessary ''''animus'''' (intention to possess as owner) and therefore cannot constitute adverse possession. The court held that Article 510 of the Portuguese Civil Code does not apply because there was no ''''inversion of title''''—a condition required for prescription to operate in cases of possession in another''''s name. The defendants'''' possession was not in the name of the plaintiffs, and they never accepted a permissive relationship, thus their possession was not permissive but adverse. The court emphasized that mere physical possession without the intention to possess as owner (animus possidendi) cannot amount to adverse possession, reinforcing that permissive occupation cannot become adverse possession.Checking relevance for Neelam Gupta VS Rajendra Kumar Gupta...
2024 7 Supreme 643 : The legal documents explicitly state that permissive possession cannot amount to adverse possession. In paragraph 43, it is held that the defendants/appellants failed to establish ''''animus possidendi'''' under hostile colour of title and instead tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession. The court further emphasizes that adverse possession requires all three classic requirements to co-exist: nec vi (adequate in continuity), nec clam (adequate in publicity), and nec precario (adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge). The nature of possession by tenants or lessees is permissive, and as held in Brij Narayan Shukla v. Sudesh Kumar, such persons cannot claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor. Therefore, permissive occupation can never become adverse possession.
