ADVERSE POSSESSION

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
31	T. Anjanappa and Ors Vs. Somalingappa and Anr	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	22/08/2006	Adverse Possession-meaning of and requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession-Suit claiming title to the property on the basis of Municipal records-Possession of the property by plaintiff three years prior to filing of the suit-Allegat	Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true owner and even if they had believed that the Government was the true owner an	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
32	M. DURAI Vs. MADHU AND ORS.	Coram: S.B. SINHA , MARKANDEY KATJU	11/01/2007	Adverse possession-Burden to prove-Suit claiming title by sale deed-Defendants claiming adverse possession-Dismissal of suit-First Appellate Court holding in favour of plaintiff-High Court formulated question as to whether the lower appellate court w	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court formulated a wrong question. The change in the position in law as regards the burden of proof as was obtaining in the Limitation Act, 1908 vis- -vis Limitation Act, 1963 is evident. Whereas in	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
33	Des Raj & Ors Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. & Ors	Coram: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU	20/02/2007	Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 64 and 65-Adverse possession-Determination-Parties being co-sharers-Long and continuous possession of plaintiff-Plea of adverse possession-Sustainability of-Held: Plaintiff is to prove acquisition of title by adverse pos	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, a finding of fact has been arrived at by all the three courts. They have analysed the evidences on record. They have taken into consideration the correct legal position operating in th	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
34	A.P. HOUSING BOARD Vs. MOHAMMAD SADATULLAH & ORS	Coram: C.K. THAKKER , LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA	13/04/2007	Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 2(d), 2(e) & 7-Possession of a portion of the land acquired in land acquisition proceeding for Housing Board not taken due to encroachment and thereby resulting in non-payment of compensat	Allowing the appeal of the land-owners and dismissing other appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The consequence of the decision of the High Court in previous proceedings is that in respect of the petition schedule two acres of land, proceedings under th	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
35	P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors Vs. Revamma and Ors	Coram: S.B. Sinha , Markandey Katju	24/04/2007	Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 64 & 65 of the Schedule-Indian Limitation Act, 1908-Articles 142 & 143 of the Schedule-Purchase of suit property by plaintiffs by registered sale deeds without knowledge of earlier purchase of the same by defendants-Suit	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Adverse possession is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person i	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
36	M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors	Coram: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU	18/05/2007	Rent control and eviction: Transfer of Property Act, 1882/Limitation Act, 1963; Articles 65 & 67: Tenancy-Tenant-Landlord issuing notice to tenant terminating tenancy-Tenant did not deliver vacant possession and continued to tender rent-Tenant	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is expected of a person who has obtained title by reason of an oral gift; Hiba although permissible in law, but a heavy burden lay on him to prove the same. Respondent No.1 is an educational society. I	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
37	Bakhtiyar Hussain (dead) thr. Lrs Vs. Hafiz Khan and Ors	Coram: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN	24/09/2007	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s.100-Title suit-Defendants claiming to have perfected their title by adverse possession-Suit decreed on the finding that possession was permissible-Affirmed by First Appellate Court-Second appeal-Substantial question of	Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1. It was nobody's case that the position related to possession of the defendants by way of lease or otherwise. The basic issue related to adverse possession. Ther	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
38	Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam & Ors	Coram: S.B. SINHA, HARJIT SINGH BEDI	12/10/2007	Adverse possession-Mere possession of land is not enough-Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner-For said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. The title of the land was with Corporation of Madras. The Corporation had transferred the suit property in favour of Mr. Krishnadoss Lala. Despite the fact that the Corporation of Madras had divested itse	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
39	Kannan (dead) by Lrs and others Vs. V.S. Pandurangam (dead) by Lrs & others	Coram: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU	27/11/2007	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100(4) and Or. 14 r.1-High Court deciding second appeal without formulating substantial question of law-Effect of-Suit for declaration of title and for possession-Plea of defendant of acquiring title by adverse pos		Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
40	State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Abdul Khuddus (Dead) by LRs & Ors	Coram: TARUN CHATTERJEE, DALVEER BHANDARI	29/11/2007	Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Writ petition-Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with findings of fact arrived at by Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-HELD: High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Arti		Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
41	Dharmarajan & Others Vs. Valliammal & Others	Coram: H.K. SEMA, V.S. SIRPURKAR	11/12/2007	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.100 - Second appeal - Re-appreciation of evidence - High Court set aside judgment of first appellate court on basis of non-existent substantial questions of law and accepting an entirely new case based on un-pleaded	Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court has gone into a dangerous area of appreciation of evidence, that too on the basis of non existent substantial questions of law. None of the five questions framed by the High Court could be	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
42	Mazhar Hassan Vs. Gangu Singh & Ors.	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, AFTAB ALAM	09/01/2008	Land Reforms: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - ss.209 & 210 - Decree of eviction against respondent in suit under s.209 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act - Execution application rejected as time barred - Decree holders sold disput	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. In terms of Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, two conditions are required to be fulfilled if the decree holder of a decree obtained in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has to lose h	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
43	Pratap Lakshman Muchandi & Ors. Vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa & Ors.	Coram: A.K.MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU	18/01/2008	Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.20 - Agreement to sell property executed in 1982 for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- - Vendor received Rs.10,000/- as advance money - Suit for specific performance by vendee - Decreed by Trial Court - Order upheld by High	Disposing of the appeals and the connected contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. As per the evidence on record, it is apparent that the agreement to sell in question was for the purpose of family necessity only and it does not lie in the mouth	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
44	B.K. Sri Harsha (D) By L.R. & Anr Vs. M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd	Coram: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM	08/02/2008	Specific Relief Act, 1963; Ss.16 & 20: Suit for specific performance of contract of sale of certain properties - Decreed by trial Court holding that Vendee was in adverse possession of suit property, willing to perform his part of contract and pai	Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeals in purported exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. Though, the judgment cannot be said to be limine dismissal of the appeals, yet the manner	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
45	Mohd. Hussain (dead) by LRs & Ors Vs. Gopibai & Ors	Coram: TARUN CHATTERJEE, A.K. MATHUR	19/02/2008	Abatement - Of second appeal - Death of one of respondent - No application for substitution of his heirs and LRs made even till signing of judgment - Plea of appellant that second appeal abated in its entirety on death of deceased respondent - Held:	Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The mortgagor `H' had died on 19.11.1991. The application for substitution after setting aside abatement was filed by the appellants in the second appeal to bring on record the heirs and legal representative	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4 5