Skip to main content

Owner must act within 12 years or squatter will get rights

Person, who claims title over property on strength of adverse possession is required to prove his case only against true owner of property

In Dagadabai (dead) by L.Rs. v. Abbas, the First and Second Appellant Court concurring with the trial court had allowed the appeal but the High Court wed the appeal and while setting aside judgment/decree of two Courts below and the matter came to the Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in admitting second appeal in first instance and then further erred in allowing it by answering question framed in Defendant's favour. When trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently decreed Plaintiff's suit by recording all findings of facts against Defendant, then, such findings of facts were binding on High Court. Second appeal did not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law within meaning of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) to enable High Court to admit appeal on any such question much less answer it in favour of Defendant.

Further the Supreme Court held that, plea of adverse possession being essentially a plea based on facts, it was required to be proved by party raising it, on basis of proper pleadings and evidence. 

It is a settled principle of law of adverse possession that person, who claims title over property on strength of adverse possession and thereby wants Court to divest true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against true owner of property. It is equally well-settled that, such person must necessarily first admit ownership of true owner over property to knowledge of true owner and secondly, true owner has to be made a party to suit to enable Court to decide plea of adverse possession between two rival Claimants. 

It is only thereafter and subject to proving other material conditions with aid of adequate evidence on issue of actual, peaceful, and un-interrupted continuous possession of person over suit property for more than 12 years to exclusion of true owner with element of hostility in asserting rights of ownership to knowledge of true owner, a case of adverse possession can be held to be made out which, in turn, results in depriving the true owner of his ownership rights in property and vests ownership rights of property in person who claims it. In this case, Defendant did not admit Plaintiff's ownership over suit land and, therefore, issue of adverse possession, could not have been tried successfully at instance of Defendant as against Plaintiff. That apart, Defendant having claimed ownership over the suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of Rustum and having failed to prove this ground, he was not entitled to claim title by adverse possession against Plaintiff. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more