Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

Plea of Adverse Possession Requires Specific Pleading and Clear Proof: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a defining judgment on the principles of adverse possession, the Supreme Court, through Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted the crucial need for specific pleadings and clear proof in such claims while dismissing the appeal in M. Radheshyamlal v. V Sandhya and Anr. etc.

The Court underscored that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the claimant must provide precise details, including the commencement of possession, its continuity, and its known nature to the true owner. The apex court stated, "the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff."

The dispute centered on property ownership claimed through adverse possession by the appellant. The contention challenged the title derived from a settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds. The appellant argued continuous, open, and uninterrupted possession for over 45 years. In contrast, the respondents, based on settlement and sale deeds, refuted these claims.

The Court meticulously examined the principles of adverse possession. It was observed that the appellant failed to establish the necessary elements of adverse possession, namely, the exact commencement of possession, its open and uninterrupted nature, and its awareness to the true owner. The Court also addressed the necessity of probate or letters of administration in claiming rights based on wills, particularly in Chennai.

Justice Oka noted, "a plea of adverse possession must establish both possession which is peaceful, open, and continuous possession which meets the requirement of being nec vi nec clam and nec precario."

Concluding that the appellant failed to substantiate claims of adverse possession, the Court dismissed the appeals but granted the appellant an extended period until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

Radheshyamlal v. V Sandhya and Anr. Etc.

Similar News