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...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007 M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s) VERSUS Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C. No. 165 of 1993. 2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra. 3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimenta...

The Supreme Court has held that no copyright exists on the "title" of a literary work while quashing a criminal case against the producer of a Bollywood movie. A bench comprising justices MB Lokur and SA Bobde passed the order on an appeal filed by Krishika Lulla and others against an order of the Bombay high court which had refused to quash a complaint filed by writer Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta. "No copyright subsists in the title of a literary work and a plaintiff or a complainant is not entitled to relief on such basis except in an action for passing off or in respect of a registered trademark comprising such titles. CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 258 & 259 OF 2013, KRISHIKA LULLA & ORS.  vs SHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATTA & ANR.              …. RESPONDENTS, dated October 15, 2015

Citations: 1) H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. VS L. VENKATESH REDDY, Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of 2011]-Decided on 17-4-2015.  The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh's case (supra) are relevant and are extracted below :                 "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also ...