FB 451: p [63] "Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the 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. This is substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. We fail to comprehend why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to loose its possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. In our considered view, there is an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession. We recommend the Union of India to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession...." in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, 2007 (6) SCC 5 and Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harija, AIR 2009 SC 103. In the latter judgment, it was held. indiankanoon.org/doc/247555/
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:03:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015