Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Adverse possession

NEELAM GUPTA & ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

The registered sale deed dated 04.06.1968 conveyed ownership to the plaintiff; the appellants failed to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period and their evidence showed only permissive possession (adhiyadar), so the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 65 and the High Court correctly decreed recovery of possession for the plaintiff; sale deeds were not void for minority or benami on the facts.

Source excerpt

  • Joint hindu family property
  • Bhumiswami rights
  • Animus possidendi
  • Permissive possession
  • Prescriptive period
  • Sale deed
Read case analysis
Limitation

VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR. versus RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's suit filed in 1993 was barred by limitation and, independently, was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because the plaintiff omitted to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession while being aware that the life-estate holder (and her heir in possession) occupied the property; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the trial and first appellate courts' dismissals restored.

Source excerpt

  • Suit for declaration
  • Extinguishment of right to property
  • Maintainability of declaration suit under section 34 sra
  • Accrual of cause of action
  • Article 58 and article 65 limitation act
  • Reversioner/remainderman limitation
Read case analysis
Code of civil procedure, 1908

B. R. PATIL versus TULSA Y. SAWKAR & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's determination that the plaint schedule properties were self-acquired properties of R.M. Patil and that the plaintiffs (and other legal heirs) are entitled to declared shares; Order II Rule 3 does not compel joinder of other causes or parties and non-joinder did not imperil the suit on the cause of action before the court; the appellant failed to prove ancestral/joint family properties omitted from the plaint or to establish ouster/adverse possession of item No.3, and items alleged in the written statement were shown to be separate acquisitions of the…

Source excerpt

  • Joinder of causes of action
  • Non-joinder of necessary parties
  • Partial partition
  • Ouster and adverse possession
  • Admissions in pleadings
  • Preliminary decree vs final decree
Read case analysis
Civil

NARASAMMA & ORS. versus A. KRISHNAPPA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the Agreement of Sale, General Power of Attorney and affidavit relied on by appellants were not proved and showed manipulations, and that appellants failed to establish adverse possession (including failing to specify when possession became hostile or to examine the claimed titleholder), meant appellants could not validly claim title or adverse possession from the same date; appeal dismissed and appellants directed to vacate and hand over possession.

Source excerpt

  • Adverse possession
  • Title
  • Possession
  • Registration of documents
  • Limitation
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.

The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court’s finding that the lessee was not entitled to compensation was a decision limited to apportionment under Section 30 and its reasoning as to termination for that limited purpose does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for possession; the suit for possession by the lessors fell under Article 67 of the Limitation Act and, having been filed within twelve years from determination by efflux of time (lease expiry 23 September 1974; suit 13 March 1981), was within time; non-payment of rent did not prove forfeiture prior to expiry and the d…

Source excerpt

  • Apportionment of compensation under section 30 land acquisition act
  • Denotification under section 48 land acquisition act
  • Determination of lease and clause for ejectment
  • Tenant at sufferance vs tenant holding over (section 116 tp act)
  • Res judicata (section 11 cpc)
  • Applicability of articles 65/66/67 of the limitation act
Read case analysis
Adverse possession

SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. versus NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

The defendants never admitted that the suit property vested with the Managing Officer or that the plaintiff acquired title; they only asserted long continuous possession without pleading or proving hostile possession (animus possidendi) to the knowledge of the true owner, and therefore adverse possession was not established; accordingly the High Court's finding that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession was legally unsustainable, the High Court judgment and decree were set aside and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.

Source excerpt

  • Animus possidendi
  • Nec vi nec clam nec precario
  • Suit for possession
  • Title by purchase from managing officer
  • Continuous possession
Read case analysis
Adverse possession

BRIJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER versus SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

The plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession on the balance of probabilities: the Khasra entries relied upon were suspicious red-ink corrections unexplained by the plaintiff, the lands were sold to Urmila Devi on 11.10.1972 and she was put in possession before the expiry of twelve years defeating the claim of continuous adverse possession, and therefore the High Court's reversal was unsustainable; the first appellate court's finding that possession vested with the purchaser and consequential sale to appellants is restored and the suit dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Khasra entries
  • Section 115 m.p. land revenue code
  • Section 116 m.p. land revenue code
  • Section 117 m.p. land revenue code
  • Onus of proof in adverse possession
Read case analysis
Property law

V. LAXMINARASAMMA versus A. YADAIAH (DEAD) & ORS.

The Tribunal/Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 has the requisite jurisdiction to determine questions of adverse possession in land grabbing cases; Konda Lakshmana Bapuji lays down the correct law, N. Srinivasa Rao overruled.

Source excerpt

  • Special tribunals
  • Jurisdiction
  • Limitation
  • Burden of proof
  • Title
  • Possession
Read case analysis
Adverse possession

P. LAKSHMI REDDY versus L. LAKSHMI REDDY

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff did not lose his right by adverse possession: even assuming Hanimi Reddy's possession from January 20, 1930 was adverse, it was not sufficient in time by October 23, 1941 to displace the plaintiff's title; and the period of possession by the Receiver pendente lite cannot be tacked to Hanimi Reddy's possession because the Receiver is an officer of the Court and not an agent of a party, and limitation could not run against the co-heirs while the Receiver was in possession.

Source excerpt

  • Co-heir possession
  • Ouster
  • Tacking of possession pendente lite
  • Limitation act s.14
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.