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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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