HARI CHAND @ HARISH CHANDRA versus SHRI DAULAT RAM

HARI CHAND @ HARISH CHANDRA versus SHRI DAULAT RAM

On evidence, the alleged encroachment was not a recent construction; the wall and khaprail existed 25-30 years before. There was no partition by metes and bounds found, nor pleading that the suit property fell to the plaintiff or his vendor on partition. Plaintiff failed to prove trespass or encroachment, so suit rightly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Chand @ Harish Chandra; Respondent: Shri Daulat Ram
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 October 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated 21st December, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation, Partition, Easement, Trespass, Encroachment
Property Law Adverse Possession Limitation Partition Easement Trespass Encroachment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Chand @ Harish Chandra

Appellant

Shri Daulat Ram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated 21st December, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acquired title by adverse possession under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
  2. 2 Whether the disputed wall with khaprail and the encroachment were recent constructions or existed long before the plaintiff's claim?
  3. 3 Whether there was a valid partition by metes and bounds between co-sharers so as to entitle the plaintiff to possession?

Ratio Decidendi

On evidence, the alleged encroachment was not a recent construction; the wall and khaprail existed 25-30 years before. There was no partition by metes and bounds found, nor pleading that the suit property fell to the plaintiff or his vendor on partition. Plaintiff failed to prove trespass or encroachment, so suit rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • There will be no order as to costs.