SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. versus NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. versus NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

The defendants never admitted that the suit property vested with the Managing Officer or that the plaintiff acquired title; they only asserted long continuous possession without pleading or proving hostile possession (animus possidendi) to the knowledge of the true owner, and therefore adverse possession was not established; accordingly the High Court's finding that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession was legally unsustainable, the High Court judgment and decree were set aside and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.

Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS.; Defendant Respondent: NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Animus Possidendi, Nec Vi Nec Clam Nec Precario, Suit for Possession, Title by Purchase From Managing Officer, Continuous Possession
Adverse Possession Property Law Limitation Animus Possidendi Nec Vi Nec Clam Nec Precario Suit for Possession Title by Purchase From Managing Officer Continuous 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS.

Plaintiff Appellant

NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the suit is time barred (limitation)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit (title)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants never admitted that the suit property vested with the Managing Officer or that the plaintiff acquired title; they only asserted long continuous possession without pleading or proving hostile possession (animus possidendi) to the knowledge of the true owner, and therefore adverse possession was not established; accordingly the High Court's finding that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession was legally unsustainable, the High Court judgment and decree were set aside and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment and decree of the High Court dated 18.02.2011 set aside