MALLIKARJUNAIAH versus NANJAIAH & ORS.

MALLIKARJUNAIAH versus NANJAIAH & ORS.

The Courts below erred in holding that respondents perfected title by adverse possession; respondents admitted plaintiff's ownership by pleading adverse possession and failed to prove possession that was open, hostile, exclusive and to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the requisite period; plaintiff filed suit within 12 years of knowledge of encroachment (measured 1983, suit 1992), so respondents could not perfect title by adverse possession; therefore the impugned finding is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed.

Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Mallikarjunaiah; Respondents Defendants: Nanjaiah & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; plaintiff's suit decreed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Declaration of Title, Possession
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Declaration of Title Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mallikarjunaiah

Appellant Plaintiff

Nanjaiah & Ors.

Respondents Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants perfected title by adverse possession over 1 Gunta in Sy. No.17/3
  2. 2 Whether the defendants discharged the burden of proof to establish adverse possession
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's suit was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge of encroachment

Ratio Decidendi

The Courts below erred in holding that respondents perfected title by adverse possession; respondents admitted plaintiff's ownership by pleading adverse possession and failed to prove possession that was open, hostile, exclusive and to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the requisite period; plaintiff filed suit within 12 years of knowledge of encroachment (measured 1983, suit 1992), so respondents could not perfect title by adverse possession; therefore the impugned finding is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; plaintiff's suit decreed in its entirety

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Plaintiff decreed owner of the suit land including the encroached 1 Gunta in Sy. No.17/3