Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Defendants' Failure to Specify Adverse Possession Date Invalidates Claim: Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Lack of Continuous, Open, and Hostile Possession Cited in Rejection of Adverse Possession Defense

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff in a significant case concerning adverse possession and property title. The court ruled that the defendants failed to provide clear and specific details necessary to substantiate their claim of adverse possession over the suit Schedule ‘B’ property. The decision, delivered by Justice M.G.S. Kamal, underscores the stringent requirements for proving adverse possession.

The case involved a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. NO. 1366 OF 2018) where Sri. C M Meer Liyakhath Ali, the appellant, contested the First Appellate Court’s judgment that had reversed the trial court’s decree in his favor. The First Appellate Court had held that the respondents (defendants) had perfected their title to the suit Schedule ‘B’ property by adverse possession. However, the High Court found the defendants' evidence and pleadings insufficient to establish such a claim.

Credibility of Pleadings and Evidence: The High Court emphasized the necessity for explicit and unambiguous pleadings to establish adverse possession. "Defendants must demonstrate continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period," the court noted, highlighting the inadequacies in the defendants' claims. The evidence presented was deemed generic and conflicting, failing to meet the legal standards required.

Justice Kamal extensively discussed the elements and burden of proof necessary for adverse possession. The court reiterated that possession must be hostile to the true owner and known to them, and it must be continuous and open. The High Court found that the defendants did not provide specific details of their possession or the date from which it allegedly became adverse to the plaintiff, invalidating their claim.

The judgment referred to several precedents, including T. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr. and Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors., reinforcing the principle that adverse possession requires clear and specific evidence. The High Court's decision was consistent with these established legal standards.

Justice Kamal remarked, "The defendants’ failure to specify the date from which possession became adverse and the lack of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the plaintiff’s title invalidate their claim of adverse possession." This assertion highlighted the deficiencies in the defendants' case.

The Karnataka High Court's ruling reinstating the trial court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff sends a strong message about the stringent proof required for adverse possession claims. By setting aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, the High Court reaffirmed the plaintiff's title and possession over the disputed property. This decision underscores the necessity for defendants to provide precise and compelling evidence when asserting adverse possession, ensuring that property rights are upheld based on clear and unequivocal grounds.

Date of Decision: 16th April 2024

Sri. C M Meer Liyakhath Ali v. Smt Vasanthamma & Ors.

Similar News