OM PRAKASH Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following rulings:-

(2.) The learned Advocate for the respondent-UIT has relied upon the following ruling:-

(3.) In this case also Honourable the Supreme Court observed that a plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law and, therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show, (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. It was further held that law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. Honourable the Apex Court felt an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession and, ultimately, it was held that suit for declaration and possession ought not have been decreed on the ground of adverse possession.