Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Adverse possession ...

(Querist) 13 May 2013 This query is : Resolved 
My father had a premises on rent for the last 30 years and after he expired it is in my possession and none of the other legal heirs had any possession to the same.
The last rent was paid by me 25 years back.
The landlord filed a case for non payment of rent against all the legal heirs of my father.
The case was dismissed ex parte 10 years back as the landlord also had expired and no one appeared on his behalf and since the last 25 yrs n0 one has paid rent for the premises.

My ques. are -

1.Am i entitled to ownership of the premiss as ownership by Adverse Possession now as i am the last one who had paid rent for the premises.
2. Can other legal heirs of my father still claim to be tenants of the premises along with me .
3. Can other legal heirs also claim adverse possession of the property along with me .
4. Can the Legal heirs of the Landlord still claim rent and ownership of the property.

Thanks ...
Advocate M.Bhadra (Expert) 13 May 2013
Tenancy shall govern by respective Premises Tenancy Act which disclose legal heirs can stay only few years after death of original tenant.


The Article originated wrtitten by www.legalblog.in:-

The Supreme Court in Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs Palle Venkata Subba Rao has explained the underlying principles in cases pertaining to claims of Adverse Possession. The Bench speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad held as under;

"What is adverse possession, on whom the burden of proof lie, the approach of the court towards such plea etc. have been the subject matter of decision in a large number of cases. In the case of T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, it has been held that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the classical requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owner's title. Relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows :

It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action."
tdeli (Querist) 14 May 2013

Thanks...

But what does this mean to the facts of my case...
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 15 May 2013
The last paragraph of the reply as given above is fully applicable in your case.
tdeli (Querist) 16 May 2013
Thanks...

Please will someone explain the last para in an easier languauge/tone.

Thanks a lots again.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :