https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287148 A person who erects a building on another's land cannot claim possession of the standing structure merely by asserting title to the superstructure; absent a superior right to the land, the remedy is limited to removal of materials or compensation, not recovery of the building as an independent asset. In a suit based on title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and can recover only the property actually proved to belong to him. On the Commissioner's identification, title was proved to the marked plot but not to the house standing outside it, so partial relief was appropriate: declaration and recovery of the identified plot, but not possession of the house. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:22:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287148 A person who erects a building on another's land cannot claim possession of the standing structure merely by asserting title to the superstructure; absent a superior right to the land, the remedy is limited to removal of materials or compensation, not recovery of the building as an independent asset. In a suit based on title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and can recover only the property actually proved to belong to him. On the Commissioner's identification, title was proved to the marked plot but not to the house standing outside it, so partial relief was appropriate: declaration and recovery of the identified plot, but not possession of the house. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287148