Скачать с ютуб #482 в хорошем качестве

#482

LEGAL ASPECTS ON THE CLAIM OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: 1. It is very important to know the dicta observed by the Privy Council in Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan (28)AIR 1934 PC 23. In this case, it was observed that “the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be “nec vi nec clam, nec precario” and the possession required must be adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent to show that possession is adverse to the competitor”. 2. In Cheedella Padmavathi’s case, 2015 (5) ALT 634, it was held that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, thus it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary for adverse possession. A Person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) On what date he came into possession, (b) What was the nature of his possession, (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party. (d) How long his possession has continued, and (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. 3. Effect of claim of adverse possession relating to the partition of property under Hindu law is discussed in Mettubandi (died) per L.Rs Vs. T.Lakshmamma and others, 2016 (4) ALT Page 1. In this case, it was observed that when the plaintiff failed to prove that he and his brother contributed money for the purchase of schedule property and when it is in the name of his brother and after him, in the name of his L.Rs in the records and in their possession and enjoyment, the property is not liable for partition as plaintiff failed to initiate any legal action in time and as L.Rs of his brother have also perfected their title to property by adverse possession. 4. It is well settled law that mere long possession of a property without adverse animus against real owner will not ripen into title. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. See. Karnataka Board of Wakf’s case, (2004) 10 SCC 779. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won’t affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. 5. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title. See. Annakili v. A.Vedanayagam (3) 2008 (2) SCJ 218. 6. A suit for mere injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable as persons in possession of property can resist interference with the said property on the strength of possession alone, see. Ediga Ranganayakulu (died) per L.Rs. Vs. B.Venkatesu and others – 2015 (3) ALT 481. 7. In Gorige Ailamma vs Utkoori Somaiah And Others – 2015 (2) ALT 467, it was held that where a party is seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, burden lies on such a party to adduce satisfactory evidence to prove his title and possession. 8. The law is well settled that when a person acquires title by adverse possession and the real owners fail to recover possession from such occupant of the property within the statutory period, the right of the owners to such property stands extinguished at the determination of the period limited to owners for instituting a suit for possession of the property. therefore, this section of law of limitation not only bars the remedy of the real owners but also extinguishes their title/right to the property. See. Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, Durgampudi Padmamma Vs. Kallutla Kottamma (died) and another – 2016 (5) ALT 739. 9. Section 65 of Limitation Act governs the suit for possession based on title - period of limitation for such a suit is 12 years when possession of defendants became adverse to the plaintiff, Pidikiti Venkatarathnam v. Dr. Ramanavarapu Sampath Kumar – 2010 (5) ALT 136. 10. As per Limitation Act, 1963, if a plaintiff establishes his title, he is entitled to recover possession. The burden to prove perfection of title by adverse possession rests upon defendant who raises such a plea. See. Thota Kameswara Rao Vs. Thota Ramgopal – 2015 (2) ALT 317 (D.B.). The person who pleads adverse possession must not only prove the factum of continuous possession for over 12 years but also prove that such possession was open and adverse to the actual owner.