Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following rulings:- (1) Heera Lal v. Municipal Council, Churu & anr., 2009 (4) WLC (Raj.) 414 In this case it was it was held that a person who is in settled possession of land, cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. (2) Ram Path & ors. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 614 . In this case, necessary ingredients of settled or actual possession were discussed in relation to right of private defence of accused person in criminal case. (3) Sukha Singh & anr. v. Mahal Singh & anr., 2002 (4) WLC (Raj.) 152 In this case it was held that while deciding application under O. XXXIX R. 1 and 2 CPC, prima facie case should not be confused with prima facie title.
(2.) The learned Advocate for the respondent-UIT has relied upon the following ruling:- (1) State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, 2011 (4) Civil Court Cases 706 (SC) : 2011 (3) Apex Court Judgments 701 (SC) : 2012 AIR SCW 276 In this case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has felt an urgent need of suitable changes in law of adverse possession. It was also held in this case that outmoded law of adverse possession essentially asks the judiciary to place its stamp of approval upon conduct that the ordinary Indian citizen would find reprehensible. It was further held that the doctrine of adverse possession has troubled a great many legal minds. The time has come for change. It was also observed in this case that people are often astonished to learn that a trespasser may take the title of a building or land from the true owner in certain conditions and such theft is even authorised by law. It was observed in this case that theory of adverse possession is also perceived by the general public as a dishonest way to obtain title to property. (2) Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & ors., 2008 (3) Apex Court Judgments 671 (SC) : 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 558 (SC) : 2008 AIR SCW 6996 .
(3.) In this case also Hon'ble 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. Hon'ble 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.;