Legal Reference Library

In Chandi Prasad Vs. State, the Himachal Pradesh High Court while deciding on Adverse Possession said that - It is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner’s title must be peaceful, open and continuous. It is equally settled that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. In...

Setting aside a judgment of Bombay High Court which had held that it is not necessary for a ‘defendant’ to first admit the ownership of the ‘plaintiff’ before raising a plea of adverse possession, the Supreme Court, in Dagadabai vs Abbas, has held that a person claiming adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner. A bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre also observed that the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants. In the instant case, the defendant had not admitted the plaintiff’s ownership over the suit land, but the high court had observed that such admission is not necessary. But the apex court, on appeal, observed that the issue of adverse possession could not have been tried successfully at the instance of the defendant as against the plaintiff. The court also observed ...

Dismissing a suit for adverse possession filed against Bangalore Development Authority, the Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Jayamma has reiterated that the period of the   adverse possession can only be counted from the date of purchase of the property and the period for which the original vendor held the property, and the date of Mahazar could not be counted. Possession of the Suit property (Acquired by the Government) was handed over to the BDA on August 30, 1988. The original owner of the property, being in actual possession sold the property to the plaintiff who filed a suit in 2001 claiming adverse possession. Suit was decreed and the High Court upheld the appeal Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal allowing the appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority also held that sale in favour of the respondent in the year 1994 was void ab initio as the title had already been vested in the BDA and the original owner who had pur...

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 28034/2011 (Arising out of CC 9038/2010) State of Haryana …Petitioner  Versus Mukesh Kumar & Ors. …Respondents