‘Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner’

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

The principle ‘Possession is Good against all but the True Owner’ is declared in Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73. In this decision it was also pointed out that if the rightful owner did not come forward and assert his title within the period of limitation, his right would be extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.

The Supreme Court of India while accepting this principle in Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, pointed out that the law in India allows a plaintiff to maintain a possessory suit under Sec. 9 (preset Sec. 6) of the Specific Relief Act. Such a suit can be filed against a title holder, if he had dispossessed the plaintiff ‘otherwise than in due course of law’.

Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:

6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought
- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
- (b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

In Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, it is observed as under:

“17. … To express our meaning we may begin by reading 1907 AC 73 (Perry V. Clissold), to discover if the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner has in any way been departed from.
1907 AC 73 reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly:
- “It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”
Therefore, the plaintiff who was peaceably in possession was entitled to remain in possession and only the State could evict him. The action of the Society was a violent invasion of his possession and in the law as it stands in India the plaintiff could maintain a possessory suit under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act in which title would be immaterial or a suit for possession within 12 years in which the question of title could be raised. As this was a suit of latter kind title could be examined. But whose title? Admittedly neither side could establish title. The plaintiff at least pleaded the statute of Limitation and asserted that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. But as he did not join the State in his suit to get a declaration, he may be said to have not rested his case on an acquired title. His suit was thus limited to recovering possession from one who had trespassed against him. The enquiry, thus narrows to this:
- did the Society have any title in itself,
- was it acting under authority express or implied of the true owner or
- was it just pleading a title in a third party ?
To the first two questions we find no difficulty in furnishing an answer. It is clearly in the negative. So the only question is whether the defendant could plead that the title was in the State?
Since in every such case between trespassers the title must be outstanding in a third party a defendant will be placed in a position of dominance. He has only to evict the prior trespasser and sit pretty pleading that the title is in someone else. As Erle, J. put it in Burling v. Read [(1848)11 Q.B. 904]
- ‘parties might imagine that they acquired some right by merely intruding upon land in the night, running up a hut and occupying it before morning’.
This will be subversive of the fundamental doctrine which was accepted always and was reaffirmed in Perry V. Clissold (1907 AC 73). The law does not, therefore, countenance the doctrine of ‘findings keepings’.

Possession is a Good Title of Right Against any one who cannot Show a Better

In Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813, our Apex Court explained the principle ‘possession is a good title of right against any one who cannot show a better’ as under:

“9. The law in India, as it has developed, accords with jurisprudential thought as propounded by luminaries like Salmond. Salmond on Jurisprudence states:
- “These two concepts of ownership and possession, therefore, may be used to distinguish between the de facto possessor of an object and its de jure owner, between the man who actually has it and the man who ought to have it. They serve also to contract the position of one whose rights are ultimate, permanent and residual with that of one whose rights are only of a temporary nature.
- x x x x x In English law possession is a good title of right against any one who cannot show a better. A wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with respect to all persons except earlier possessors and except the true owner himself. Many other legal systems, however, go much further than this, and treat possession as a provisional or temporary title even against the true owner himself. Even a wrongdoer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up possession, and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. The intention of the law is that every possessor shall be entitled to retain and recover his possession, until deprived of it by a judgment according to law.
- Legal remedies thus appointed for the protection of possession even against ownership are called possessory, while those available for the protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as proprietary. In the modern and medieval civil law the distinction is expressed by the contrasted terms petitorium (a proprietary suit) and possessorium (a possessory suit).”
10. As far back as 1924, in the case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1924 PC 144, the learned Judge observed that in India, persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court. Later, in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, this Court ruled that when the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. It was further held that if Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (corresponding to the present Section6) is employed, the plaintiff need not prove title and the title of the defendant does not avail him. When, however, the period of six months has passed, questions of title can be raised by the defendant, and if he does so the plaintiff must establish a better title or fail. In other words, such a right is only restricted to possession in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (corresponding to the present Section 6) but does not bar a suit on prior possession within 12 years from the date of dispossession, and title need not be proved unless the defendant can provide one.
11. It was also observed by this Court in Nair Service Society Ltd (supra) that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In such a case, the defendant must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title and probably a possession prior to the plaintiff’s, and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time.”

Settled Possession and Established Possession

In A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam, AIR 2021 SC 821, the Supreme Court held that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction. But, it was cautioned that the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborated in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief.

In Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813, it was pointed out in a case where there was no document to prove settled possession that ‘merely on doubtful material and cursory evidence, it cannot be held that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the property, and that too in settled possession’. It held further as under:

“13. The crux of the matter is that a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. Settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be (i) effective,(ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Injunction is a Possessory Remedy.

Courts protect settled possession (Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004-1 SCC 769). Injunction is a possessory remedy. (See: Ladies Corner, Bangalore vs State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 KAR 1710, 1987 (1) KarLJ 402. Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Corporation of The City (M Venikatachaliah, J.) : AIR 1986 Kant 194, ILR 1985 KAR 3700, 1985 (2) KarLJ 533. Referred to in Chetak Constructions Vs. Om Prakash, AIR 2003 MP 145. )

Courts grant injunction without seeking declaration when title is clear, simple and straight-forward; and when no serious denial or cloud on title (not any apparent defect): Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddi: AIR 2008 SC 2033.

But, an injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession. See: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji vs Maniben Jagmalbhai: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 258.

No decree for recovery unless ‘present right to the possession’

While considering the question whether a worshipper can file a suit for recovery, it is held by our Apex Court, in M Siddiq Vs. Mahanth Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case) 2019-1 SCC 1, that no decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the worshipper has the ‘present right to the possession’. But it is pointed out that in such situations, a worshipper must be permitted to sue as next friend of the deity, sue on behalf of the idol itself – directly exercising the deity’s right to sue.

Person in possession can use Reasonable Force to keep out a Trespasser

In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, our Apex Court Court, observed as under:

“8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.”

Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – HC and SC Approached in different Perspectives

Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal, 2022-10 SCC 217, arose from a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The findings of the High Court were the following:

the plea of ownership claimed by the plaintiff based on a sale deed and the plea of adverse possession were contrary to each other;
the plaintiffs could not have been permitted to take both the pleas at the same time;
but, in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since the execution of the said sale deed, the plaintiff was entitled for injunction on the basis of his possession.

Setting aside the High Court judgment the Apex Court held as under:

“The possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs”.

Should the Defendant-Rightful-Owner Approach the Court Again For Recovery?

No.

Before Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal, our Apex Court held in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 258 (M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.) to the following effect (see ‘End Notes’ below):

The plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction and/or protect his possession against the rightful owner, more particularly, when he fails to get the declaratory relief with respect to the title.
In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession, the only thing the plaintiff will have to establish is that as on the date of the suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant has tried to interfere or disturb his possession
the plaintiff, who has failed to get any declaratory relief on title cannot be said to be in “lawful possession”. Only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, he is legally entitled to be in possession, and not to disposes him, except in due process of law.
The contention of the plaintiff that even if the plaintiff failed to get the declaratory relief and the suit is dismissed, once the plaintiff is found to be in possession, her possession cannot be disturbed except in due process of law and the only remedy available to the defendant would be “to file a substantive suit to get back the possession is noticed only to be rejected outright”.
In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370, it was held that the ‘due process’ or ‘due course’ condition was satisfied the moment the rights of the parties were adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that it did not matter who brought the action to court.
In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, the Court has approved the following findings of the High Court of Delhi in Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs. Hotel Imperial (2006) 88 DRJ 545:
- “In this context, when a party approaches a court seeking a protective remedy such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a good case, can it then say that the other party must now institute an action in a court of law for enforcing his rights i.e. for taking back something from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and, till such time, the court hearing the injunction action must grant an injunction anyway? I would think not.”
Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant is held to be the true owner, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.
- Note: It is not specifically stated in this decision, Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, that one can resume possession using force.

Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force

It goes without saying that the the rightful owner is not legally entitled to eject the interloper or trespasser by force, otherwise than by due process of law; especially when the trespasser is in settled possession.

In Karthiyayani Amma v. Govindan, AIR 1980 Ker 224, the High Court considered the question whether the rightful owner can eject a trespasser in possession with force; and whether a person in illegal possession could sustain a suit for injunction against the true owner, from forcibly dispossessing him from the property. It was held as under:

“The ultimate position, therefore, reduces itself to this:
Can a person in possession without title sustain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner if he proves possession?
Yes.
In this case, plaintiff is found to in be possession. On the finding, he should be granted the injunction prayed for. A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. Even the rightful owner cannot eject him with force. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by everyone including the rightful owner. If the rightful owner threatens his peaceful possession, he can approach Courts of Law and pray for the equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession”. (Followed in Aiysumma Vs. Mariyamma, 1994-2 CIVCC 52, 1994-1 KerLT 570. )

It is pointed out in Suresh v. Ashok Girdharilal Chandak, 2016-1 MHLJ 171 that ‘bearing in mind the basic principle of law in civil jurisprudence that even a trespasser cannot be evicted without following due process of law and no one can be allowed to take law into his own hands to recover possession of the property without following due process of law and without proving title to the immovable property in possession of a person holding actual physical possession thereof’.

Person in possession can use Reasonable Force to keep out a Trespasser

In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, our Apex Court Court, observed as under:

“8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force.
If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession.
The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force.
In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.” (quoted in: Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V. Kanna Gounder, 2009-3 SCC 306)

What is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner was made clear in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769. It reads as under:

“9. …The “settled possession” must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase “settled possession” does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession.” (quoted in Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 564)

Temporary Mandatory Injunction – To preserve or restore the status quo ante

Two Landmark Decisions

(1) Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867
(2) Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1975, (2004) 4 SCC 697

(1) Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, AIR 1990 SC 867 : (1990) 2 SCC 117, is the laudable decision on interim mandatory injunction. It is laid down that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted to:

(i) preserve or restore the status quo ante, of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy, or
(ii) to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done, or
(iii) the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining.

It is also pointed out that the court would consider the prospect of granting of a mandatory injunction finally, after trial; and delineated that a fresh state of affairs cannot be allowed to be created by the grant of such an injunction.

(2) Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1975, (2004) 4 SCC 697, is the decision in the matter of elections in a Co-operative Society where the Apex Court moved forward and stated that Interim Mandatory Injunction can be granted if the court is satisfied that refusal of injunction would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself and there would be nothing left to be allowed when the final pronouncement comes.

See Blog (Click): Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles

‘Possession Follows Title’ and ‘Title Follows Possession’

The legal principles, ‘Possession Follows Title’ and ‘Title Follows Possession’, are Rules of Evidence. They are applied in cases where there are no sufficient and independent evidence to prove possession or title, as the case may be.

Under S. 110 Evidence Act, ownership is presumed on the proof of possession. It ‘follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession'(Chuharmal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M P, AIR 1988 SC 1384; 1988 3 SCC 588).

S. 114 Evidence Act, expressly permits the court to ‘presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case’. Therefore, by virtue of Sec. 114,

(i) possession can be presumed on the basis of title (possession follows title), and
(ii) title/ownership can be presumed on the basis of possession (title follows possession).

S. 110 Evidence Act & the Principle, ‘Title Follows Possession’

Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under:

“110. Burden of proof as to ownership.—When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”

This section deals with the burden of proof as to ownership – when a question arises as to whether a person in possession of anything is the owner of such thing. There, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who avers that he is not the owner.

In State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319, the Apex Court held that the object of Section 110 is based on public policy. The object is to prevent persons from committing a breach of peace by taking the law into their own hands however good their title may be over the land in question. This object underlies provisions such as Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963, Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Sections 154 and 158 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Sec. 114 Evidence Act– Title Follows Possession & Possession Follows Title

In M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1, the Apex Court quoted the following from State of AP v. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319 where Justice B.S. Chauhan explained as under:

‘21…..The said presumption is read under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and applies only in a case where there is either no proof, or very little proof of ownership on either side. The maxim – possession follows title – is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of wastelands, or where nothing is known about possession one way or another.
Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party. Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved. It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it. It in fact means, that if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him.
A person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property, while the other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/ encroachment, etc.
Where the apparent title is with the plaintiffs, it is incumbent upon the defendant, that in order to displace this claim of apparent title and to establish beneficial title in himself, he must establish by way of satisfactory evidence, circumstances that favour his version.
Even, a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession.
Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.’ ”

In Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, Apex Court held as under:

“But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession.”

In Arumaraj Devadhas v. K. Sundaram Nadar, 2009-17 SCC 467, also it was held that the principle possession follows title applies in vacant land. This principle is applied in ‘open space‘ in Praprai N Kothari Vs. John Braganza, AIR 1999 SC 1666 and in Rajendar Singh Vs. Santa Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2537. In Naval Shankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1496, the Apex Court observed that it was ‘settled law that in respect of open land, title follows possession’.

See Blog: When ‘Possession Follows Title’; When ‘Title Follows Possession’?

Possession Follows Title and Adverse Possession

It is held in MS Jagadambal v. Southern Indian Education Trust, 1988 (Supp) SCC 144 that the possession continues with the title holder unless and until the defendant acquires title by adverse possession (possession follows title). In LN Aswathama v. P Prakash, 2009-13 SCC 229, the Supreme Court held as under:

“In law, possession follows title. The plaintiffs having established title to the suit property, will be entitled to decree for possession, unless their right to the suit property was extinguished, by reason of defendant being in adverse possession for a period of twelve years prior to the suit.”

When the principles in Sec. 110 and 114 CANNOT be invoked

As we find in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case), 2020-1 SCC 1, Section 110 or the principle ‘title follows possession‘ applies when the facts disclose no title in either of the disputants in which case, possession alone decides (presumption cannot be invoked when the facts are known). But, with respect to the principle ‘possession follows title‘, as we find in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, if only title is proved by one party, then only the principle ‘possession follows title’ comes in.

It is equally important that both these principles on presumption, ‘possession follows title’ and ‘title follows possession’, cannot be invoked in cases where:

(i) the defendants do not claim title/possession to the suit property (Devasia @ Kutty v. Jose, 2014-4 KLJ 41; 2014-3 KLT(SN) 50).
(ii) the facts (on title/possession) are known (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1), or
there is evidence of independent possession/title (Bhavnagar Municipality Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 717).

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Book No. 1. Handbook of a Civil Lawyer

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

‘Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner’

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply