Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 Section 2(d), 2(e), and Section 10—Essential Requirements, Mens Rea, and Burden of Proof—In matters arising under the Land Grabbing Act, an allegation of land grabbing is a sine qua non for maintaining an application—To successfully establish a case of land grabbing, the applicant must prove both the factum of unlawful possession and the mens rea—the intention behind such possession—Mens rea includes actions such as forcibly taking possession of land, creating unauthorized tenancies, or raising illegal constructions—A critical requirement is the applicant’s ability to demonstrate prima facie ownership or lawful possession of the land in dispute—Upon establishing such prima facie ownership, a presumption arises against the alleged land grab...

The defendants (defendant-appellants) challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court—The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction, claiming that the defendant-appellants had illegally occupied a portion of their ancestral land—The defendants raised the defense of adverse possession, claiming they had been in continuous, hostile possession of the land for over 12 years—However, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected this plea, affirming that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land—The Court emphasized that a claim for adverse possession must be based on clear, continuous, and hostile possession, with the knowledge of the true owner—In this case, the defendants failed to meet these requirements—Citing ...

Adverse Possession—Ownership Dispute—Court Decision on Title and Adverse Possession Claim—In a dispute over property ownership, the court upheld the plaintiffs’ title to the Suit Property and dismissed the defendant's claim of adverse possession—The defendant, the brother of the first plaintiff, failed to prove his claim of adverse possession—The court ruled that long possession, revenue record mutations, and custody of title deeds were insufficient to establish adverse possession—It emphasized that the defendant’s initial possession was permissive, as he had been managing the property for the plaintiffs, who lived far away—The court found no evidence of hostile intent or animus possidendi on the part of the defendant, nor was there any notice to the plaintiffs regarding the defend...

Adverse possession. (A) Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65—Defence of Adverse possession—Appeal by defendant—Requirements to co-exist to constitute adverse possession are not established by them—So also, it can only be held that the reckoning of the period of limitation from the date of commencement of the right of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land instead of looking into whether they had succeeded in pleading and establishing the date of commencement of adverse possession and satisfaction regarding the prescriptive period in that regard, was rightly interfered with, by the High Court. (Para 45) (B) Civil procedure code, section 100—Second Appeal—Defence of concurrent finding of facts by Civil Judge and District Judge Courts—There can be no doubt that being concurrent cannot be a g...

Adverse Possession—Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., the appellant's legal representatives were substituted after her death—The dispute involved 52 2/9 square yards in Visakhapatnam—The plaintiff, asserting title via registered gift deeds (Ex.A.1, Ex.A.3), sought a declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, who claimed adverse possession—The trial court affirmed the plaintiff's title but did not grant an injunction based on constructive possession—The first appellate court confirmed the plaintiff's title but denied the injunction, suggesting a new suit for possession—On second appeal, the High Court noted concurrent findings supporting the plaintiff's title, criticized the appellate court's handling of possession evidence, and reinstated the trial court's decree&m...

Adverse Possession—Second appeal, the plaintiff sought declaration of title over certain properties through adverse possession against the defendants, the State and Tahasildar—The court determined that by claiming adverse possession, the plaintiff indirectly admitted the ownership of the State over the properties—It emphasized that adverse possession requires specific pleading and proof of the date when possession became adverse and when it ripened into title—As the plaintiff failed to provide such details, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not perfected their title through adverse possession—Therefore, the appellate court's decision declaring the plaintiff's title over the properties was deemed unsustainable—The appeal by the defendants was allowed, setting aside the appellate court...

Adverse possession—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rule 1—Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65—Adverse possession against Government, when not found—Government allotted a plot to Municipality to construct Bus Stand—Residents trespassed that land, obtained an Ex-parte injunction, entered into agreement etc.—Government did not lose title and possession of that property—Plaintiff did not get any rights settled in his favour—Impugned order passed by High Court in Revision petition is set aside—Suit land admittedly was owned by the Appellant/State—Even if State had allotted it to BMC for constructing a bus stand, BMC could not have dealt with it and treated it to be in the ownership or possession of plaintiff by entering into agreement dated 30.07.1991—BMC would be bound as an ...

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100—Second Appeal—Agreement to Sell—Title declaratory suit—Registered sale-deed—The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing their suit on grounds of limitation regarding a disputed land area in Village Hardoi. The plaintiff claimed ownership through a 1966 sale deed—The trial court decreed the suit for injunction, relying on the sale deed and other documents—The appellate court decreed the suit for possession but upheld ownership in favor of the plaintiff—The High Court allowed the defendant's second appeal, citing adverse possession since 1944—The Supreme Court found the High Court erred, not addressing crucial findings, reappreciating facts, or disproving ownership—Adverse possession by tenants pre-1966 wasn't hostile—The pl...

(A) Specific Relief Act (Sections 25, 27)—Adverse possession—Doctrine that allows an individual to claim ownership of another person's property by occupying it openly, continuously, and without permission for a certain statutory period. However, when the land in question belongs to the government, the courts must exercise greater caution and scrutiny in adjudicating adverse possession claims. This is because such claims, if successful, could result in the loss of the government's rights or title to immovable property. (B) Adverse possession—To establish a valid claim of adverse possession, several key criteria must be met. The possession must be: Adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent, demonstrating adverseness to the true owner. Overt and without attempts at concealment, making it appa...

...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 145—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65—Adverse Possession—Limitation—Civil suit in Rajasthan where the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession of a property—The High Court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the Supreme Court disagreed—They found that the suit was filed within the 12-year limitation period as it was based on adverse possession that arose during previous legal proceedings—Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 2 Rule 2—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65(b)—Defendants appealed a judgment and decree from a trial court, which was upheld by the District Court and the High Court—Case involved a dispute over ancestral property, with the plaintiffs being the children of Anandibai—Defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that it violated Order II Rule 2 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code)—Court rejected these arguments, stating that the suit was not barred by limitation as it involved full ownership rights and that the cause of action for the earlier suit was different—Appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents ...

Legal representatives of the plaintiff filed an appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the plaintiff's suit regarding an agricultural land dispute—Defendant claimed adverse possession and adoption but failed to prove either—High Court's admission and judgment in favor of the defendant were found legally erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff. ...

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Adverse possession - Suit property - miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed....

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976—Section 27—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136, Article 300A, Article 65—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 16(2), Section 4, Section 53A, Section 6—Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Section 24(2)—Adverse Possession—Ingredients—Requirement of unhindered, peaceful, and continuous possession of a suit land for a period of 12 years—In this case, it was found that such possession did not exist, which means the conditions for adverse possession were not met—The plea of equity was deemed irrelevant in this case as it arose from civil proceedings filed in the form of a suit by the respondent—Once it was established that the respondent could not prove t...

Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65, Article 66—Court addresses the issue of adverse possession, particularly when claimed by the State or government entities. The court emphasizes that no government department, public undertaking, or police department should be allowed to use adverse possession to claim land or property that belongs to its own citizens. It warns against government instrumentalities attempting to possess land adversely, highlighting that this would lead to a breakdown of law and order. The court asserts that the right to property is a fundamental human right and must be considered within the context of individual rights. It also emphasizes that a person claiming adverse possession has no equity in their favor as they are trying to defeat the rights of the true owner.   ...

Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65 — Adverse possession—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—Plaintiff and defendant, step-brothers, were involved in a dispute over immovable properties—The plaintiff entrusted his share of the properties to the defendant with the expectation of its return upon his comeback, along with the derived income—The evidence did not support the plaintiff permanently abandoning the property—The First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, stating that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession and ouster of the plaintiff for over 12 years—The plaintiff consistently remained a co-owner—The defendant's dishonest defenses were criticized, and the High Court's decision to set aside the lower courts' findings was deemed unsusta...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100—Adverse possession—For a successful claim of adverse possession, possession must be openly and adversely held against the property owner—In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating this open and adverse nature, and when it is uncertain against whom adverse possession is alleged, the plea of adverse possession is not maintainable—The court concludes that the evidence presented fails to establish the necessary elements for a valid claim of adverse possession. ...

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989—Section 163—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65—Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954—Section 163, Section 163(3)—Adverse possession—Ejectment suit filed approximately 19 years after the order of ejectment—High Court dismisses suit solely on the grounds of limitation, without addressing the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession—Appellate court allows the appeal, remanding the matter for consideration of the second issue, i.e., adverse possession. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 64, Section 27—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100, Section 96—Case pertains to adverse possession and the extinguishing of the right of the owner when no legal action is taken within the specified time. The court emphasized that a plaintiff claiming adverse possession must establish actual possession with a hostile title. The plaintiff is required to plead and prove the date from which exclusive, continuous, and undisturbed possession began, known to the real owner. The High Court, acting as the first appellate court, failed to consider these aspects. The court held that adverse possession or ouster involves questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact, and the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, must draw infer...

Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Deals with the concept of adverse possession concerning land in a Scheduled Area—The court emphasizes that a non-tribal cannot acquire rights and title to land in a Scheduled Area through adverse possession—Referring to the precedent in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh, the court dismisses the argument that a non-tribal could acquire such rights based on adverse possession—Consequently, the court deems the order of the High Court unsustainable—It clarifies that the issue of a non-tribal acquiring rights through adverse possession over land in a Scheduled Area, which belongs to a Scheduled Tribe member, does not arise. ...

Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—Suit property, temple—Second Appeal against a judgment dated October 3, 1985—The appellants, representing the Marwari Kumhar Community of Dewas, filed a suit in a representative capacity, seeking a declaration of title to a property used for religious functions—The suit was initially decreed in favor of the community, but an appeal by the respondents overturned the decision—A Second Appeal in the High Court reinstated the trial court's decree—Subsequently, the respondents claimed ownership again, leading to the present suit filed in 1960 for possession—The appellants relied on an ordinary copy of the earlier judgment, as the original documents were lost—The trial court decreed the suit, upholding the earlier judgment&...

Limitation Act, 1963—Article 63—Adverse possession—Appointment of the Madathipathi of Shiva Kanchi Udasi Math in Kanchipuram—The Math's foundation and headship devolution are outlined in documents dating back to 1870—Nagendra Dass, a key figure, claimed headship through an alleged appointment by Ramji Dass—Disputes arose between Nagendra Dass and the Allahabad Society, leading to legal proceedings—The High Court, in 1966, found Nagendra Dass incompetent to nominate his successor and issued directions for a valid appointment—Subsequent events, including Nagendra Dass's death and the plaintiff's appointment in 1972, form the basis for the current lawsuit—The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the plaintiff's appointment and concluding that Nagendra Dass was not validly...

...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14, Article 21, Article 38—Adverse possession—Supreme Court heard appeals arising from a common set of facts regarding the alienation of land granted to a predecessor-in-title under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Certain Lands Act, 1975—The appellant claimed entitlement to the land based on a subsequent purchase, contested by the State—The Court held that the assignment of land to empower economically disadvantaged communities is a constitutional imperative—Alienation of such land, prohibited under Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code, is void as against public policy—The appellant's claim of adverse possession was rejected due to failure to disclaim title and assert a hostile claim against the State—Referring to precedent, the Cour...

Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—That mere termination of a license does not entitle a licensee to claim adverse possession without an overt act asserting hostile title—Unauthorized possession post-termination, even if prolonged, is insufficient for adverse possession—In the case at hand, the appellant did not demonstrate hostile title after the license was terminated by Dr. Rama Shanker or the first respondent—Consequently, the first respondent's suit for possession was not barred by the Limitation Act, 1963—The Court confirmed the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal—The appellant's request for time to vacate premises was considered reasonable due to prolonged possession and his son's schooling—The Court granted time to vacate roo...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 114—Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession—This appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court, which had reversed the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the trial court’s decree—The litigation involved a property initially owned by an Ezhava Marumakkathayam Tharwad—After the property was sold and subsequently purchased through court auction, it was mortgaged, and the mortgage lender's successor (State Bank of Travancore) became a plaintiff—The plaintiffs sought to reclaim the property, arguing it was held by Krishnan Krishnan, an agent with only a lien over the property, not absolute ownership—The trial court found Krishnan Krishnan's possession was permissive and not ...

...

...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 42 Rule 1, Section 100—Limitation Act, 1908—Article 141—An exchange of raiyati land in Sonthal Parganas was invalid under Section 27(1) of the Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872—The appellants challenged the validity of an exchange of land executed by Nilmoni Dasi, arguing it violated Section 27(1), which prohibited the transfer of raiyati land unless recorded in the Record of Rights—The High Court had initially ruled the exchange valid, dismissing the contention based on Section 27(1) and adverse possession—However, the Supreme Court found that Section 27(1) explicitly barred such exchanges—The Court also clarified that the contention regarding Section 27(1) was correctly raised before the District Court—The High Court's decision wa...

Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 64 and 65—Possession, a mortgagee in possession may acquire full ownership if their possession continues for the statutory period— Kanji and Lalji, holding possession through a mortgage, were entitled to remain in possession as mortgagees as long as the mortgage was in force— Their mere assertion of ownership did not convert their lawful mortgagee possession into hostile possession— However, a mortgagor can sell the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, thereby terminating the mortgage and transferring full ownership to the mortgagee— Such a sale, while binding between the parties, may be voidable against subsequent purchasers— Despite this, if the mortgagee's possession based on claimed ownership continues throughout the statutory period, it can ripen into title&mdash...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 64—The suit lands involving a complex history of sales and mortgages—The appellant, a minor at the time of an initial sale deed in 1923, sought recovery of land from the first defendant, who claimed adverse possession—The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the appellate court found the suit barred by limitation—The High Court upheld this view, leading to the appeal—The core issue was whether the first defendant's possession was adverse to the appellant’s family—The Supreme Court found that there was no conclusive evidence on whether Rajanna, who was purportedly a minor, was of legal age at the time of the alleged transaction cancellation—Consequently, the case was remanded to the Distr...

...

Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 64 and 65—Adverse possession and the rights of reversioners in the context of a Hindu widow's estate— It was held that the right of a reversioner is not affected by a widow’s interest in the estate— Adverse possession claims against a widow do not sever the property from inheritance, and a surrender by the widow does not affect prior interests acquired by trespassers— The Court noted that while a widow’s surrender is voluntary, and a transferee from a widow assumes the risk of such a transaction, there is no Hindu law basis for treating prior adverse possession as an enduring interest against reversioners— The appellants, who were trespassers since 1925, could not claim adverse possession against reversioners— The Court concluded that equitable considerati...

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 133(1)—Adverse possession involving property dedicated to an idol, a shebait (trustee) cannot claim adverse possession against the idol— The shebait, appointed to manage and safeguard the idol’s property, holds possession on behalf of the idol, and any claim of adverse possession by him would be contrary to his duties— Allowing a shebait to claim adverse possession would incentivize dishonesty and breach of trust, jeopardizing the security of dedicated properties— As the shebait's possession is essentially the possession of the idol, his dealings with the dedicated property cannot serve as a basis for claiming adverse possession— Therefore, as long as a person remains a shebait, they cannot assert a claim of adverse possession against the idol. ...