TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Defendants' Adverse Possession Claim Denied; Wall Rights Deemed Easements</h1> <h3>M. Harichandra Prasad Versus Chitturi Krishnamurthy And Ors.</h3> M. Harichandra Prasad Versus Chitturi Krishnamurthy And Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Adverse Possession without Plea2. Rights over Disputed Wall by Adverse Possession, Prescription, or Easement3. Legality and Interference in Second AppealDetailed Analysis:1. Adverse Possession without Plea:The primary issue was whether the court could hold that the defendants had perfected their title to a 10' portion of the wall by adverse possession without a plea of adverse possession in the written statement. The court noted that the defendants had not specifically pleaded adverse possession but had provided details of their title claim. The court discussed the principle that a plea of adverse possession must be clearly stated and supported by evidence. The court referred to the precedent set in Arundati Mishra v. Sriramacharitra Pandey, which emphasized that mutually inconsistent pleas, such as title and adverse possession, cannot coexist unless one is renounced.2. Rights over Disputed Wall by Adverse Possession, Prescription, or Easement:The court examined whether the defendants' rights over the 10' portion of the disputed wall could be categorized as adverse possession, prescription, or easement. It was found that the defendants had used the wall for over 60 years, inserting rafters and constructing sheds. However, the court determined that mere long-term use does not automatically result in adverse possession. The court highlighted the necessity of proving the three ingredients of adverse possession: open, continuous, and hostile possession. The court concluded that the defendants' use of the wall was more appropriately categorized as an easement by prescription, as defined under Sections 4 and 15 of the Easements Act. This classification was supported by consistent and uninterrupted use for over 20 years, fulfilling the conditions for prescriptive easement.3. Legality and Interference in Second Appeal:The court addressed whether the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were illegal and warranted interference in the second appeal. The court found that the lower courts had erred in their findings by not correctly applying the principles of adverse possession and easement. The court emphasized that the defendants' use of the wall did not meet the criteria for adverse possession but did qualify as a prescriptive easement. The court set aside the lower courts' findings that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession and instead declared the defendants' rights as prescriptive easements.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for a permanent injunction and declared the wall HJV to belong to the plaintiff, subject to the defendants' prescriptive easement rights. The plaintiff was required to file a fresh valuation slip and pay the requisite court fee within a month to benefit from the decision. Both parties were instructed to bear their respective costs.
TaxTMI 