That case is a single Judge case, and it appears that in the Madras High Court there are conflicting decisions on the point. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies, on fact, the Appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial judge. If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, 5 recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. In the event of appeals the case could take 5-10 years. Another reason given by the High Court was that the adverse possession should have been effective and adequate in continuity and in publicity. It does not, however, follow that the liability to pay compensation arises only in such a case and no other Co-owners are legally competent to come to a any kind of arrangement for the enjoyment of their undivided property and are free to lay down any terms concerning the enjoyment of the property. I have sold 3 flats and 3 handed over to her.
The view of Madras High Court in Kanneganti Ramamanemma5 and of other High Courts following that view do not appear to us as laying down correct law. When the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and when he cannot prescribe any title to the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title much less for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial Court that the appellant entered into possession over the 1 and in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The right of the plaintiff to file suit for partition had arisen after the Act has come into force and regrant was made by the Collector under Sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels Abolition of Officers Act, 1962. In the case before us, the plaintiff was originally in actual possession of the land. When a plaintiff sues for possession on the basis of dispossession, the burden lies on him to show that the date of his dispossession or discontinuance of possession was within 12 years of the suit.
In view of the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were adopted for trial:— i Whether the suit has been filed with malafide intention, if so, its effect? The plaintiff should establish that he was actually in physical possession of the immovable property from which he had been illegally dispossessed without his consent. Since this section was introduced to expeditiously resolve matters hence, there shall lie no appeal against any order or decree in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of such decree or order be allowed -Section 6 3. Trespasser, if he so likes, can bring a regular suit to prove his title. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i. If the notices are delivered and defendant did not appear or 30 days time has been expired than the court can proceed ex-parte against the defendant. Shivchand tenant had no interest in the possession of the property in dispute under the circumstances of the case and the only persons interested in possession thereof was the plaintiff. In a suit under Art.
Engagement of Technical Experts The Bill contemplates an appointment of an expert to assist the court on specific issues involved in the suit. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a suit is competent by the landlord, even if he is not in actual physical possession of the land but in its possession through a tenant at the time of illegal dispossession. Dispossession implies some amount of force or fraud. . The right to equality and non discrimination is violated by the said enhancements.
The impact on the economy of such a law would be enormous. He may either join as a co-plaintiff or in case he refuses to join as a co-plaintiff he may be made a defendant so that he might have his say in the matter. Summary procedure: Summary procedure for recovery of the possession of immoveable property is provided in Sec. Twelve years The date of dispossession. Not only do the themes cause the novel to become so gripping, but the characters help in the suspense as well. This paper reviews how this broad vision is shaping common goals, principles, values and strategies across the two fields.
. A check into criminal history revealed two prior arrests, March 7 2012 for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, and. The executed registered sale deed is in my name as well as in the name of his wife. Ganguly, appearing in support of this application, contended that the plaintiff's suit under S. Thus it is a settled rule of law as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open ascertain of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to construe ouster.
It is further prayed that a decree for half rent as mesne profit according to total rent already has been receiving by the defendant No. Comment: This is a welcome clarification. Section 6 deals with Revovery of Immovable Property on the strength of Possession. In execution of that decree Shivchand tenant was dispossessed. The disputed site is 22. A person can prescribe title only against a real owner in case he is in possession of the property to the knowledge of the real owner.
Under these circumstances, we hold that the plaintiff was dispossessed within the meaning of of the Specific Relief Act when his tenants were evicted from the land by the defendant. Client denied having any prior arrest. The story takes place in the early 19th century deep within slavery, on a sugar plantation in Louisiana. The incidental question is, whether tenant is a necessary party in such suit. In a suit for possession based on registered lease deed even if there is no prayer for declaration that the lease deed is invalid and or void, the suit would still be maintainable as the necessary averments are there in the plaint and no prejudice has been caused to the other party.
The right to equality and non discrimination should not be violated by giving preferential treatment to the state in respect of immovable property owned by the state. The Division Bench of Additional Judicial Commissioners, Nagpur, in Ramchandra v. Section 5 thus provides for a suit for ejectment on the basis of title and Section 6 gives a remedy without establishing title provided the suit is brought within 6 months of the date of possession. Various categories of professionals and workers will find employment such as surveyors, architects, engineers, contractors, electricians, plumbers and unskilled labours. Section 6 was introduced to provide expeditious relief to persons who are wrongfully and unlawfully dispossessed from the possession without any consent. The contesting defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by filing revision application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. My father has filed suit for permanent injunction agt.