HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Bannerji, C.J. -
(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal, exercising original jurisdiction, dated 31st July 1948, whereby the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs.
(2.) The plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to sixteen bighas and odd of agricultural land in village Kumin on the allegation that they had perfected a title by prescription for a period of over twenty years. Out of 10 defendants, only a few contested and have resisted the suit on various grounds. The principal grounds were two :
"(1) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession did not have all the qualities of adequacy, continuity and exclusiveness, which should qualify such adverse possession. (2) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession was founded on benami transaction and therefore, according to law of Mandi, the benami transaction being void, the Page 1 of 4 Narain and Ors. vs. Balabh Das and Ors. (26.03.1949 - HPHC) adverse possession can have no legal basis."
(3.) The facts of the case are that the disputed land belonged to one Gadru, who, on 19-10-1980, had transferred it for Rs. 1000 in favour of one Guju, predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiffs. At the time of the sale, Guju was a 'Kuthiala' or store-keeper of the plaintiffs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.