GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT versus DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT versus DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

Mere unauthorised possession after termination of licence does not entitle the licensee to claim title by adverse possession; there must be a clear overt act amounting to assertion of hostile title to the licensor, which was not established in this case. Hence, the respondent's suit for recovery of possession is not barred by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Parties
Appellant: Gaya Parshad Dikshit; Respondent: Dr. Nirmal Chander; Respondent: Another Respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 January 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Act 1963, Article 65, Recovery of Possession, Termination of Licence
Property Law Limitation Law Adverse Possession Limitation Act 1963, Article 65 Recovery of Possession Termination of Licence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaya Parshad Dikshit

Appellant

Dr. Nirmal Chander

Respondent

Another Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mere termination of licence and unauthorised possession enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Ratio Decidendi

Mere unauthorised possession after termination of licence does not entitle the licensee to claim title by adverse possession; there must be a clear overt act amounting to assertion of hostile title to the licensor, which was not established in this case. Hence, the respondent's suit for recovery of possession is not barred by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court confirming possession to the respondent is affirmed.
  • Appellant to give up possession of room No. 1 and any other portion (except rooms 4 and 5) by 28th February 1984.