Adverse Possession

  • Adverse Possession - A person in wrongful possession of suit property is definitely not entitled to an injunction - He cannot even be permitted to perfect his title by way of adverse possession - Where a person seeking permanent injunction is in possession of a property but his title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts his title thereto, per force, such person will have to sue for declaration of title and the relief of injunction could only be consequential. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  •         Adverse Possession - A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession cannot be taken as conceding the title of the plaintiffs and there is no such proposition possible in the way Article 65 of the Limitation Act has been framed - If the possession is lost to a true owner and the person in possession establishes his title, the recovery of possession could be defeated.  (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse possession - As on the date of the suit, the respondents had not completed 12 years in possession of the suit property so as to entitle them to claim adverse possession against BDA, the true owner -  The argument that possession of the land was never taken also needs notice only to be rejected for it is settled that one of the modes of taking possession is by drawing a Panchnama which part has been done to perfection according to the evidence led by the defendant BDA. Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (dead) by Lrs. AIR 1996 SC 3377 and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1608, relied. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 801
  •         Adverse Possession - Between the plaintiff and the defendant trying to assert rights, it is the defendants' stand which is more advantageous, for, the plaintiff suing for ejectment of a property which the adversary occupied could succeed only on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant.  (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Both the parties to the lis are neighbours and the appellants have been cultivating the land to their knowledge, i.e., their possession has been open, hostile inasmuch as that they have raised the construction of the house and the plaintiffs did not raise any eye-brow or much less objected to the same - The stray entry in few jamabandies, would not take away the status of appellants as Malkana Haq - Revenue entries, in my view, reflect the fulfillment of the aforementioned ingredients and lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellants have become owners by efflux of time.  (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Declaration cannot be sought by a plaintiff to the effect that the adverse possession has matured into ownership. (179) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Grandfather of the plaintiff has given the land in dispute to the father of defendant - Which clearly indicates that father of the defendant came into possession of the suit land with the permission of the grandfather of the plaintiff - Thus, it is nothing more than the permissive possession of the defendants - Their father came into permissive possession of the suit property, thus they cannot claim themselves to be in adverse possession of the suit property.  (183) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - No limitation prescribed for seeking possession on the basis of title and further when the said possession has been found to be of permissive nature. (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Once the plea of adverse possession has been set up by the plaintiffs, it pre-supposes the ownership of the defendants over the suit land - Once the suit itself is not maintainable, in that eventuality, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to seek over declaration vis-a-vis gift deed and sale deed subsequently - Counter-claim has been rightly allowed by the Courts below as the possession of the plaintiffs is proved to be illegal and that of trespasser on the suit land. (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession being a weapon of defence - Even otherwise, material particulars of adverse possession viz. date of commencement of possession, nature of possession, factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, length of possession, whether possession was open and hostile and to the very knowledge of the true owner have to be proved - Plea of adverse possession preceeds title in favour of opposite party - Since suit on the basis of adverse possession does not lie therefore, plaintiff cannot be held to be owner on the basis of adverse possession.(181) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law rather it is a blended question of fact and law and the person who is claiming adverse possession must show firstly that on what date he came into possession; secondly what was the nature of his possession; thirdly whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; fourthly how long his possession has continued; and fifthly his possession was open, undisturbed, hostile to the very knowledge of the opposite party.      (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable as the plea of adverse possession is available only as a defence. (183) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - The licence is personal between the grantor-licensor and the Grantee licensee - It is not transferable, much less heritable right - The permissive possession extinguished on the demise of licencee - Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882) S. 52.  (182) P.L.R.
  • Adverse Possession - Defendant has raised a plea of adverse possession - This shows that he admits the fact that ownership of suit land was taken out of the purview of the jointness and it was specifically given to the plaintiff in this case - Otherwise also the defendant himself has admitted in cross- examination that he is cultivating the land on behalf of his mother only. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Adverse Possession – No evidence was lead with regard to the plea of adverse possession – Appellate Court has committed illegality and abdication in not noticing the fact that once the defendants had set up a plea for adverse possession, the identity of the encroached property, which was in alleged possession, was not in dispute - Once the defendants failed to prove the plea of adverse possession, it tantamounts to admitting the ownership of the plaintiffs. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Adverse Possession – There cannot be any plea of adverse possession against the defendants - Once a tenant always a tenant unless that status is tampered by another legal process.  . (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER