SOMNATH BARMAN versus DR. S. P. RAJU & ANR.

SOMNATH BARMAN versus DR. S. P. RAJU & ANR.

A prior possessor of immovable property is entitled to a decree for possession against a trespasser, even if the plaintiff fails to prove title and the suit is instituted more than six months after dispossession. Possession is good title against all but the true owner; a wrongdoer cannot resist the plaintiff's claim by showing title is in someone else.

Parties
Appellant: Somnath Barman; Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff: Dr. S. P. Raju; Respondent No. 2 / Defendant: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 October 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Possessory Title, Suit for Possession, Specific Relief Act, 1877 S. 9, Adverse Possession
Property Law Specific Relief Possessory Title Suit for Possession Specific Relief Act, 1877 S. 9 Adverse 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Somnath Barman

Appellant

Dr. S. P. Raju

Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2 / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior possession alone (without title) entitles restitution of immovable property from a trespasser in a suit for possession filed more than 6 months after dispossession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, s. 9.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's possessory title is sufficient as against a trespasser who is not the true owner.

Ratio Decidendi

A prior possessor of immovable property is entitled to a decree for possession against a trespasser, even if the plaintiff fails to prove title and the suit is instituted more than six months after dispossession. Possession is good title against all but the true owner; a wrongdoer cannot resist the plaintiff's claim by showing title is in someone else.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit property.
  • No additional evidence accepted.