Possession vs ownership

What is your role in this issues? What is the status of current records? What  is the reason suddenly the Grandson comes in picture?

Consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for appreciation of facts/ documents, professional advise and necessary proceeding.

Defend your possession through a competent advocate, when the other party drags you to court, till then do not get disturbed.  Moral grounds is left to you.

While raising a query, please specify place of event to give a correct answer. Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act 1882 states that : 

Acquisition by prescripttion.—Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where support from one person’s land, or things affixed thereto, has been peaceably received by another person’s land subjected to artificial pressure or by things affixed thereto, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such access and use of light or air, support or other easement shall be absolute. Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.

Hope above satisfies your query 

Cheers!

1. Coordinate with a local Property Lawyer, with all available documents for proper guidance & solutions.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal 

VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

 

A rightful owner of an immovable property fails to take action to get back possession within the limitation period 12 years in case of private land 30 years in case of public land)  then his/her rights are lost and person in possession acquires an absolute title, the supreme court ruled out recently , but held that no benefit of adverse possession should be given to people who encroached upon public land. 

Please seek a conference with an Advocate.

Agree with opinion expressed by expert Rama  Chary Rachakonda.

It appears that you people are in possession and enjoyment of the said proeprty for more than 12 years which is averse to the so called owners of the property.

In fact they have not taken any steps to oust or vacate you from the property within twelve years of your squatting in the property.

The law on adverse possession is contained in the Indian Limitation Act. Article 65, Schedule I of The Limitation Act prescribes a limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. .

Article 64 governs suits for possession based on possessory right.

Limitation Act is one of the important laws which prescribes the limitation period in which the things should have been done

The maxim that law and equality does not help those who sleep over their rights is invoked in support of prescripttion of title by adverse possession. In other words, the original title holder who neglected to enforce his right over the land cannot be permitted to re-enter the land after a long passage of time.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act says that Court will not take cognizance of any suit, which is barred by limitation even if issue of limitation is not taken as a defence. Thus, the law of limitation bars remedy but not the right. But section 27 of Limitation Act is an exception to the general principle of law of limitation and origin of concept of Adverse possession. It reads as, if a person fails to file suit for recovery of possession, within a period of limitation, his right to recover the possession of that property also extinguishes. If such situation occurs, a true owner extinguishes his ownership over the property.

Hence you my refuse to vacate the property and file a suit for declaration of title perfecting the las of adverse possession and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in yor possession and enjoyment of the property.  

The courts in several cases wrestled with the concept of adverse possession with qualifiers like actual, continuous, open, hostile and exclusive.

The Supreme Court of India, in two decisions, namely,  Hemaji Waghaji v Bhikhabhai  Khengarbhai, and State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar 2009, sought the need for a fresh look at the law of adverse possession. The court says there is a strong demand for abolition of adverse possession as the law of adverse possession remains irrational, illogical and extremely harsh for the true owner and no certainty is there in the law of adverse possession. 

The law is considered a windfall for dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property. It benefits somebody who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in violation of law. The law approves the illegal activities of a fraudulent trespasser who had wrongfully taken possession of the property from the true owner. The law places a premium on dishonesty by
legitimizing possession of a trespasser and compelling the owner to lose his right of possession due to his inaction in taking back the possession within the prescribed period. The court adds that some of the claims based on adverse possession deserve recognition but every claim does not. The law of adverse possession is archaic and “needs a serious relook” in the larger interest of the people.