Adverso possessions

RAKESH KUMAR SINGH (Querist) 13 May 2018 This query is : Resolved
Dear sir
Their is a land near my house and we are in possession on it about 40 years.our village is batwara shuda village mean a proper map of my village is available.The land in old paper is in the name of other person . Their is 10 to 15 tree on this land but not any construction or boundry it an open land.now the person who is owner of this land claiming on it. what is my legal options on this matter.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 13 May 2018
What is the hitch in handing over the possession of land to the real owner? If you want that, whay don't you purchase that from the owner.

Kumar Doab (Expert) 13 May 2018
The land is open and real owner has appeared and can take possession..

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 14 May 2018
According to doctrine of Adverse possession if aperson has been in enjoyment of land peacefully and uninterrup-[tedly and continuously fo r30 years his peaceful uninterrupte3d possession for 30 years confers a title to hi8m to own the land even against the true owner.Law protects the vigilant and not the indolent.
Since the true donor was sle3eping over his ri9ghts all these 30 yeasts/40 years he lost his right to claim his own property from the adverse possession owner.

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
A good lolly pop by Ms. Usha Kapoor! See the fun, she declares the owner of the land as a true donor, when he has not donated his land to you..That itself reveals, she has lost her senses and common sense.
She can always be expected to support unethical illegal acts merely on the her own presumptions, even without asking for details. it is not so easy to lose the right of the property by a genuine owner, as dreamed by Ms. Usha Kapoor. If the owner has come forward to take charge of his land, which you have enjoyed using that property for such a long period, but not legally got registered by going in to long process of adverse possession, you should be ready to not only willingly handover that, but also be ready to pay compensation for unauthorised use of land to whatsoever extent you go for legal fight.
MIND IT NOTHING IS AUTOMATIC, AS PER THE LOLLY POP OFFERED BY MS. USHA KAPOOR.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 14 May 2018
Read about doctrine of adverse possession in any standard law book or internet. Then you8'd understand. it is there si8nce a long long time. It is not my inventi9on. You are not well quali8fied intelligent lawyer. hence yous don't know. You are a quack.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 14 May 2018
IN the recent case the supreme court felt it is high time to take a re look at Adverse possession which defeats the owners rights and it requires amendment and reforms.
/Click the following link.
http://kenyalaw.org/kenyalawblog/court-of-india-declares-the-doctrine-of-adverse-possession-archaic/

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
@ Ms. Usha kapoor,
You call me quack merely to vainly and falsely justify yourself your absolutely wrong opinion, while on the contrary in more than 50 cases, I have practically proved you merely a quack on the basis of your wrong and misleading advice to various querist at the LCI, itself.
What is doctrine of adverse possession? Has at any time, during the last 71 years, the parliament of India laid any such Act or doctrine of adverse possession?
You just follow the obsolete kind of papers, copy the same and paste or express your opinion based on that as you find on Google. You do not have any concern with the real kind of law of the land.

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
I am of the opinion that yours does not seem to be a real problem, rather can be an academic problem seeking answer to your school exercise.

However, if it is a real case, of course, adverse possession is not a an easy cake walk, as suggested by one expert. Even the expert herself later made amends to her opinion by quoting the adverse view of even the Supreme Court of India on the issue of adverse possession.

However, the case is required to be examined in detail to make some sense, whether that would fall under the category of adverse possession or not, as stringent conditions apply in such cases.

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
@ Ms. Usha Kapoor,
Now see, in your own subsequent post, yourself has countered your own opinion of adverse possession saying that "the Supreme Court felt it is high time to take a re-look at adverse possession, which defeats the owners rights,"

Even here itself, none else other that yourself has proved yourself as a quack by posting a senseless and totally irrelevant and misleading advice.

Further, by this quotation, yourself established that you depend only on Google search and even quote foreign country's websites, not the India laws. No doubt the Kenyan site refers the case law of the Indian Supreme Court, but you still quoted that from the foreign website document pertaining to the country of Kenya (Africa), rather than quoting the real citation of the Supreme Court of India.

You should know that even in that case, the Supreme Court disallowed even the Government of haryana to adverse possession of land of some private person, what to say of trying to be possessed by some private person. The petition of the Government was straightforwardly dismissed by the SC. Rather, the Government of Haryana had to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in that case for wasting time of the Supreme Court with such type of frivolous case.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 14 May 2018
You must have found fault only on 5 cases. You are multi8plying it by 10 and exaggerating. You're talking everything in hyperbola and boastful manner.

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
@ Usha Kapoor,
At last, may be 5, you admitted that there were faults in your advice. But rest assured, I can produce links of all the more than 50 wrong and misleading advice of yours. That would definitely make you position quite deplorable. Should I do that, if you like.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 14 May 2018
I wrote while citing the supreme court Judgment on this issue Supreme court suggested the Parliament to legislate a law on by way of amendment or new law to remove the teeth of Adverse possession and to give importance to owners and their rights. by way of amendment or reforms. Then again you are saying I'm supporting Adverse possession. Your sight is only one side.:How to defame Ms.Usha Kapoor.?.............

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
@ Ms. Usha Kapoor,
You are too forgetful. You forget, what you have written earlier. You stated in your first advice, "Since the true donor was sleeping over his rights all these 30 yeasts/40 years HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO CLAIM HIS OWN PROPERTY FROM THE ADVERSE POSSESSION OWNER." Just tell, what does that mean? Now you have stated, that I am saying that you supported adverse possession. It is not merely my saying, rather you have left ample proof that you support adverse possession.

Mind it, a real owner does not lose his right in anyway. It is the jugglery of some unethical and greedy lawyers only that someone gets illegitimate possession of some other's property. Even your own quoted case very clearly states that the Supreme Court even rejected the claim of adverse possession by the Government, itself.

Better be in senses while giving advice, instead of writing anything initially and then falsely backing from that. My sight is not one sided to prove you wrong. Rather, I honestly wish that if you are expert, must give advice like expert, not like a quack. I have noticed that only a very few of the experts at the LCI are really experts, the others behave just like quacks or make fun of the real experts.

Adv.Ambrose Leo (Expert) 14 May 2018
Dear Expert friends I have gone through the entire expert opinion & Counter but not able to come to conclusion on adverse properties & rights of parties to it in dispute.Pl enlighten with facts & law of jurisprudence.

Guest (Expert) 14 May 2018
@ Adv.Ambros Leo,
You may better be advised to enhance your expertise in the service laws, which you are already dealing, instead of breaking head in such a worthless obsolete law that is used very rarely with ample chances of failure in the career of an advocate.

P. Venu (Expert) 14 May 2018
Admittedly, you are not the owner. As such, what is the issue.

RAKESH KUMAR SINGH (Querist) 18 May 2018
Dear sir ,that land and house is aabadi land ,my village is batwara shuda village ,that property is in the name of A he give the authority of any other person B he live on that house 30 year.mr A deal with mr.B they exchange the land to each other iam Mr. C who purchase the land from Mr.B but in abadi land their is no MUTATION that's the name is SHOWING of Mr.A now there are claiming that land I purchased it on 1978 now what is my legal authority on this land Mr.A is saying that we not sell it to Mr.C then who is Mr.B to sell that house or land to Mr.C in present condition it's in my possession but the house is demolished and their are some tree on that site.

KISHAN DUTT KALASKAR (Expert) 22 May 2018
Dear Sir,

You can put up defense of title on the basis of principle of adverse possession since you are in possession of property for more than 12 years. The law is as under.

======================================================================================================

ADVERSE POSSESSION

There are many judgments and the recent one is as follows:

======================================================================

Protest within 12 years or lose property to squatter

======================================================================
ONE THE ABOVE FORMULA THE OPPOSITE PARTY LOSE ITS CASE.

If a person does not protest someone illegally occupying his property for 12 years, then the squatter would get ownership rights over that property, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench of Justices R K Agrawal and A M Sapre said if a person proved actual, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of a property owned by another for more than 12 years, “a case of adverse possession can be held to be made out which, in turn, results in depriving the true owner of his ownership rights in the property and vests ownership rights of the property in the person who claims it”.

However, the bench put in a caveat by ruling that such a person (squatter) must necessarily first admit ownership of the true owner over the property and make the true owner a party to the suit before a court for claiming ownership over the property through adverse possession.
This ruling came in a case where a Muslim man had claimed ownership over a property through adverse possession in Jalgaon of Maharashtra. He had attempted to advance the plea of adverse possession to claim ownership rights over the property, which was inherited by a Muslim woman after the death of her father.

Setting aside a Bombay high court order in favour of the man, the SC bench said, “When both courts below held and, in our view rightly, that the defendant has failed to prove the plea of adverse possession, then such concurrent finding of fact was unimpeachable and binding on the HC. The HC erred fundamentally in observing that it was not necessary for the defendant to first admit the ownership of the plaintiff before raising such a plea.”

RAKESH KUMAR SINGH (Querist) 13 June 2018
Now sir the court give the stay order in my favoir and iam appellant ,now what happened in court I have no idea.