9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves consideration of adverse possession rights, validity of a lease deed, application of Transfer of Property Act, and principles of adverse possession. Adverse Possession Rights: The defendant's appeal contested the High Court's decision upholding the appellate court's decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, denying the defendant's claim of acquiring rights through adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit based on adverse possession, but the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The High Court did not interfere in the second appeal. Validity of Lease Deed: The plaintiff claimed possession of an area leased to them by the lambardar, with a deed executed in 1949 and registered in 1950. The defendant-appellant, who trespassed on the land, argued that the deed was void under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. However, the courts held that the registration of the deed post-execution still conferred ownership to the plaintiff, as per Section 47 of the Registration Act. Application of Transfer of Property Act: The appellant contended that the lease was invalid as it was not signed by the respondent and was a unilateral act of the lambardar, contrary to the Transfer of Property Act. The court ruled that since agricultural leases are excluded from the Act under Section 117, the provisions of Section 107 did not apply, and the principles of the Act could not be extended to such leases. Principles of Adverse Possession: Regarding adverse possession, it was acknowledged that the appellant initially possessed the land under a license from the respondent for a brick-kiln. However, to establish adverse possession, hostile animus and possession adverse to the real owner's knowledge must be proven. The appellate court found that the possession was not adverse, and the evidence presented did not support a claim of adverse possession. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, stating that the appellant had not suffered any injustice warranting remedy. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
