BONDER & ANR. versus HEM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

BONDER & ANR. versus HEM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Plaintiff always remained co-owner; entrustment of property does not constitute abandonment or surrender of interest. Defendant's claim of adverse possession and ouster was not proved as plaintiff's name continued in records and there was no evidence of open, hostile assertion. High Court erred in not properly examining pleadings and evidence; its judgment set aside as unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: Bonder & Anr.; Respondent: Hem Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment & Order Dated 24.08.2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Civil Second Appeal No. 103 of 1982
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Possession, Mesne Profits, Co Ownership, Adverse Possession, Ouster, Limitation
Property Law Possession Mesne Profits Co Ownership Adverse Possession Ouster Limitation

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonder & Anr.

Appellant

Hem Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment & Order Dated 24.08.2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Civil Second Appeal No. 103 of 1982

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff remained a co-owner despite leaving the property with his brother and if ouster/adverse possession was established by the defendant; Whether the suit was barred by limitation; Whether the High Court erred in setting aside concurrent findings of facts of courts below

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff always remained co-owner; entrustment of property does not constitute abandonment or surrender of interest. Defendant's claim of adverse possession and ouster was not proved as plaintiff's name continued in records and there was no evidence of open, hostile assertion. High Court erred in not properly examining pleadings and evidence; its judgment set aside as unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside.
  • Costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid by respondent to appellant within two months.