This second appeal against a possession suit was dismissed. The Court found the suit land belonged to respondents and held long possession alone did not constitute adverse possession without clear evidence of denying title under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023:BHC-AS:34388
5-SA-887-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.887 OF 2017 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1858 OF 2017
Daulat Nimba Bhamare And Anr. …Appellants Versus
Malati Ashok Deore And Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/by Mr. P. R. Rathod for the Appellants. Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi for the Respondents.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATED : 6 SEPTEMBER 2023
P.C. :
The respondents/plaintiffs herein had filed suit for possession of the suit land on the ground that the suit land is part and parcel of land owned by them bearing block No.145.
Sayyed
1 / 2
5-SA-887-2017.doc
Sayyed
2 / 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long possession by appellants since 1982 amounts to adverse possession given clear documentary evidence of respondents' title.
Whether the lower courts correctly rejected the plea of adverse possession for lack of clear and unequivocal evidence of adverse claim to title.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nazir Mohamed vs. KamalaRelied on¶21
(2020) 19 SCC 57 · Who else cites this
Daulat Nimba Bhamare And Anr.
Malati Ashok Deore And Ors.
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
