Property law
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 01 June 2016
This query is : Resolved
Maharashtra
Mr. A & Mr B are Two Brother.Had Good Relations.
In 1980, Mr. A Had one Land, Mr. B built on his land a Building and started living with mutual consent.
Mr. A had another flat, he used to stay there.
Now they don't have good relations, Mr. A want his property back, although Mr. B had built this and spent lot of money even more than land value.
Now in 2016 Mr. A telling that everything is mine and I will not give anything from this property to you.
Can Mr. B can take some legal help since he is staying here from 35-36 years and spent on developments.
Mr. B can give paid property tax receipts of last 35 years.
Can anyone give me expert legal opinion on this.
Kappil Cchandna
(Expert) 02 June 2016
Sir,
Mr A has to file a suit to disposes Mr B from that particular property. Because Mr A has a land registered in his name.
Warm Regards
Kapil Chandna Advocate
9899011450
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 02 June 2016
Advise them to: Ask them to resolve the matter amicably.
If they approach their individual lawyers, then both will get advise to fight it out in court.
Court shall decide on merits.
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 04 June 2016
@Mr. Kapil Chandna:- I am asking on behalf of Mr. B, since he is staying here since 35 years and paying property tax.
He spent on building and developments, Mr. A had only land..
Now Mr. A asking to vacate that since they don't have good relations..earlier they had.
Kindly read the query again and reply accordingly.
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 04 June 2016
@Mr. Kumar Doab:- Thanks for the opinion.
But there is nothing left amicably in their relations...
Mr. A Now can do anything to get his property back, although Mr. B had spent lot of amount on the developments..
Now where Mr. B will go, as Land is not in his name, but Building he only built, and paying taxes and other levy since 35 years...
is there any provision in which if one is paying taxes since X years then he get some right over property.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 04 June 2016
Thanks for clarifying that you are asking on behalf of B.
Although the query may try to entangle between Trespass, Adverse Possession & Easements....
B never paid any consideration to A to own the land and title.
The apex court has decided that;
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 28034/2011 (Arising out of CC 9038/2010)
State of Haryana …Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumar & Ors. …Respondents
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/38720.pdf
8. In the written statement, the defendants raised a number of preliminary objections pertaining to estoppel, cause of action and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff ever remained in possession of the suit property for the last 55 years. It was submitted that the disputed property was still lying vacant. However, the plaintiff recently occupied it by using force and 4 thereafter have also raised a boundary wall of police line.
51. In our considered view, there is an urgent need for a fresh look of the entire law on adverse possession. We recommend the Union of India to immediately consider and seriously deliberate either abolition of the law of adverse possession and in the alternate to make suitable amendments in the law of adverse possession. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
52. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the State of Haryana for filing a totally frivolous petition and unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court and demonstrating its evil design of grabbing the properties of lawful owners in a clandestine manner. The costs be deposited within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. In this petition, we did not issue notice to the defendants, therefore, we direct that the costs be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority for utilizing the same to enable the poor litigants to contest their cases.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 07 June 2016
Since there was a mutual agreement between A & B about 30-35 years ago, consequently B invested money in construction and development of the land, which is in the possession of B right since then, hence the ratio of judgment cited herein above titled State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar is different and inapplicable in this case.
The case is covered under the preposition of "adverse possession" with mutual consent.
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 07 June 2016
@Vaschista Sir:- Thansk for understand clearly my query.
This is covered under adverse possession, then what will be remedy available with Mr B. how can he take his share.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 08 June 2016
@Ayush,
"B" is already in possession of suit property, he need not create any document qua title of the property.
Let "A' disprove the version of "B" in Court of law by filing a declaratory suit, which is next to possible.
"B" must be advised to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer to contest the title case filed by "A", if any.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 09 June 2016
The property is in the name of A, B has a weak case in his favor.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 09 June 2016
Has B offered any compensation to the title owner A?
There should be and there shall be punitive effect on dishonest trespasser, especially after the crucial judgments, laying down principles by the apex court e.g;
Munichikkanna Reddy vs Revamma
State of Haryana Versus Mukesh Kumar & Ors......................AS POSTED ABOVE.
If the apex court and Union of India has not enacted to abolish adverse possession, it is ONLY to avoid hardships to poor people in say rural areas who do not have proper title documents.
Post decisions by apex court the cases of aversion possession shall be visited and revisited by the judiciary and in line and spirit of the judgments laid by apex court.
In the courts it shall be ensured that the possession originating from dishonesty and foul means, bad faith adverse possession, does not receive the same recognition.
In this query by the author, both the stances that are required for discussion have been discussed.
It is an interesting thread.
Moderation by experts shall make it enriching.
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 09 June 2016
No..Mr B has not offered any compensation to Mr A...neither in past nor in present...
And Mr B wants Property back..no option left for compensation
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 09 June 2016
No..Mr B has not offered any compensation to Mr A...neither in past nor in present...
And Mr B wants Property back..no option left for compensation
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Querist) 09 June 2016
No..Mr B has not offered any compensation to Mr A...neither in past nor in present...
And Mr B wants Property back..no option left for compensation
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 10 June 2016
B was not and never title owner. So there is nothing like getting it back.
It is felt that B will not get it for free or even for price of peanuts.
Both A and B may approach their counsels, litigate upto apex court and be happy with the decision by the court.
P. Venu
(Expert) 01 July 2017
It is my considered opinion that the concept of adverse possession is of no application in the given facts. It is rather a case of deemed license. A is entitled to get the possession of the land back. Of course, B's expenses towards development needs to be made good.
