SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. versus SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS.

SMT. K. SHARADA BAI AND ANR. versus SMT. SHAMSHUNNISA AND ORS.

The respondent established her title and possession over the disputed 12.5 guntas of land by oral and documentary evidence, corroborated by official reports. The appellants were found to be in unlawful occupation of land not belonging to them, making them land grabbers under the Act. The appellate court found no fault in the Special Court and High Court's appreciation of evidence.

Parties
Appellant No.1: Smt. K. Sharada Bai; Appellant No.2: H. Padmini Bhai; Respondent No.1: Smt. Shamshunnisa Begum; Respondent: Jahangir; Respondents: Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Determination, Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petitions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Grabbing, Burden of Proof, Adverse Possession, Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1982
Property Law Land Law Land Grabbing Burden of Proof Adverse Possession Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, 1982

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. K. Sharada Bai

Appellant No.1

H. Padmini Bhai

Appellant No.2

Smt. Shamshunnisa Begum

Respondent No.1

Jahangir

Respondent

Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Determination, Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are land grabbers under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has established title and possession over the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the Special Court and High Court orders should be sustained

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent established her title and possession over the disputed 12.5 guntas of land by oral and documentary evidence, corroborated by official reports. The appellants were found to be in unlawful occupation of land not belonging to them, making them land grabbers under the Act. The appellate court found no fault in the Special Court and High Court's appreciation of evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants directed to deliver vacant possession of 12.5 guntas of land to respondent No.1
  • Permanent injunction granted to respondent No.1 for exclusive possession of her land