Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Key Delhi High Court Verdict: Landmark Clarification on Admissibility of Documents and Plea of Adverse Possession  

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the Delhi High Court, a division bench comprising of HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA delivered a landmark verdict on August 18, 2023, shedding light on the admissibility of documents as evidence and the plea of adverse possession.

The case centered around a property dispute over ownership and possession. The appellants contested the verdict of the First Appellate Court that upheld the Trial Court’s decree of possession and mandatory injunction. The respondents claimed ownership based on documents provided to establish their title. The appellants raised objections of forgery and insufficient proof for the documents.

One of the pivotal observations made by the bench was, “Objections to the admissibility of documents on grounds of mode of proof should be raised when evidence is tendered. Failure to do so results in the waiver of objection.” This stance reaffirms the principle that parties should timely raise objections during the trial process.

Furthermore, the bench delved into the plea of adverse possession, which the appellants raised only during the first appeal. The bench clarified that this plea was not maintained in the written statement and contradicted the appellants’ earlier claim of co-ownership. The Court emphasized the necessity to prove clear and continuous possession with animus possidendi to establish adverse possession.

The judgment underscored that "the burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession.” The bench highlighted that inconsistent pleas and failure to adhere to established legal principles cannot be entertained. Consequently, the plea of adverse possession was dismissed in this case due to inadequate pleading and supporting evidence.

In light of these findings, the Delhi High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s verdict, dismissing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and precedents, fostering a consistent and fair trial process.

This ruling serves as a significant legal precedent, guiding litigants and legal professionals to navigate the intricacies of evidence admissibility and the plea of adverse possession effectively.

 Quote from the Judgment:  “Objections to the admissibility of documents on grounds of mode of proof should be raised when evidence is tendered. Failure to do so results in the waiver of objection.”

D.D on : 18.08.2023

 RATTAN LAL & ANR.  vs RAGUNATH

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Rattan_Lal_Anr_vs_Ragunath_on_18_August_2023_DelHC1.pdf"]

Similar News