https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354913 Title to survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 remained with the applicant because those lands, and the superstructures standing exclusively on them, were not included in the sale conveyance to respondent no. 3. Mere long possession did not establish adverse possession without hostile, open and continuous assertion of adverse title, and delay alone did not extinguish ownership. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable because there was no consented transfer by an ostensible owner. Respondent no. 3 therefore acquired no title to the unsold superstructures, and any restoration of possession was made conditional on assessment and payment of construction cost. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354913 Title to survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 remained with the applicant because those lands, and the superstructures standing exclusively on them, were not included in the sale conveyance to respondent no. 3. Mere long possession did not establish adverse possession without hostile, open and continuous assertion of adverse title, and delay alone did not extinguish ownership. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable because there was no consented transfer by an ostensible owner. Respondent no. 3 therefore acquired no title to the unsold superstructures, and any restoration of possession was made conditional on assessment and payment of construction cost. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354913