9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to possession of agricultural land, adverse possession, protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, written contract for sale, and acquisition of title through adverse possession. Possession of Agricultural Land: The appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land and filed a suit for possession against the respondent who alleged to have purchased the land and acquired title through adverse possession. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, finding that the respondent failed to prove the alleged sale and adverse possession. The appellate court upheld this decision, noting the lack of evidence supporting the respondent's claims. Protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act: The respondent contended that his possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the courts found that the respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to establish this protection. The trial court concluded that the respondent's entry onto the land was permissive, and adverse possession was not proven due to the lack of hostile acts asserting ownership. Adverse Possession and Written Contract for Sale: The respondent claimed adverse possession and a written contract for sale, but the courts found discrepancies in his evidence. The appellate court highlighted that the respondent failed to produce the alleged sale document or provide witnesses to support his claims. The courts determined that the respondent's possession was permissive initially and did not evolve into adverse possession as claimed. Judicial Review and Findings: The High Court, in a Second Appeal, set aside the lower court's judgment in favor of the appellant, asserting that the respondent had perfected his title through long-term possession. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its findings. It emphasized that mere possession for a long time does not automatically lead to adverse possession, especially when the possession was initially permissive. The Supreme Court reinstated the appellate court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of establishing hostile animus for adverse possession claims. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the appellate court's decision in favor of the appellant. It clarified the requirements for adverse possession and the need for hostile animus to assert ownership. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs in the matter.
|
