Jurisprudential aspect of the doctrine of adverse possession
Bombay High Court: Dealing in detail with the jurisprudential aspect of the doctrine of adverse possession the Court proposed that ‘bad faith’ adverse possession must be abolished by the law makers and said that the law of adverse possession must be applied carefully after having considered all the necessary pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence related to the matter. In the present case, the first appellate court clearly ignored all the material evidence that was presented at the trial stage that established clearly that the appellants had the rightful title as well as possession over the suit property as they were protesting against the unnecessary encroachment over the property steadily, from the beginning. Therefore, the decision of the first appellate court was clearly arbitrary. They also committed a serious error of law as they wrongfully placed the burden of proof on the appellants to prove that the respondents did not have adverse possession over the suit property; which is contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179. Therefore, the Court set aside the order passed by the first appellate court and restored the order passed by the trial court, in favour of the appellants. [Vinod Kumar Balaprasadji Shukla v. State of Maharashtra, Second Appeal No. 670 of 2003, decided on July 30, 2013] 1
Bombay High Court
Vinodkumar Balaprasadji Shukla v state of Maharashtra on 30 July, 2013
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari
Citation; 2014 (1) MH L J 296
