Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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