{"id":224266,"date":"2020-01-16T09:56:29","date_gmt":"2020-01-16T04:26:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224266"},"modified":"2020-01-22T11:46:20","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T06:16:20","slug":"del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/b>Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner’s suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for the restoration of possession was dismissed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The subject suit was filed by the petitioners claiming that they had been illegally dispossessed from the suit property. The original owner of the property was Mela Ram, who was married to Rani. Mela and Rani did not have any child born from the wedlock. It was submitted that they adopted one Swarn Kanta in 1947. The petitioners now claiming the possession of suit property were the husband and children of Swarn Kanta. Whereas, the respondent was the son of the brother of Rani. The case of the petitioners was that after the death of Mela Ram, Swarn Kanta (being the adopted daughter of Mela Ram and Rani) succeeded in half of the share in the subject property. Subsequently, Swarn Kanta also passed away. The petitioners claimed that all this while, Rani was in possession of the entire suit property but apart from her half share in the property, she was holding the other half on behalf of Swarn Kanta. Therefore, the petitioners claimed constructive possession of the suit property through Rani.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to that, it was also alleged that the petitioners visited the suit property on 19-1-2007 to mourn the demise of Rani; and since then, they were in physical possession of the suit property for a period of 12 days after which they were dispossessed by the respondent. It was thereafter that the petitioners filed the subject suit which was dismissed by the trial court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Per contra, the respondent\u00a0<\/span>submitted that Rani herself disputed the fact of adoption of Swarn Kanta as claimed by the petitioners. Further, Rani\u00a0<\/span>had transferred the suit property in favour of the respondent who had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners had also filed counter claim challenging the sale deed executed by Rani, which counter claim was dismissed. The petitioners had not challenged that judgment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The High Court noted: “Admittedly, there was a dispute between the petitioners and Rani and a suit was pending with regard to the title in which Rani has contended that neither she nor her husband had ever adopted Swarn Kanta as their legal heir or that she had succeeded to the estate of her husband.”\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

In view of such fact, the Court observed: “When on record there was a dispute pending between Smt. Rani and the petitioners, the contention of the petitioners that Smt. Rani was holding constructive possession even for them is not tenable. The petitioners have not been able to place on record anything to show that the petitioners had ever asserted that they were in constructive possession of the suit property through Smt. Rani”<\/b><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the High Court was of the view that even if it is assumed that the petitioners were in physical possession of the suit property for 12 days from the date they reached there to mourn the demise of Rani, it could not benefit the petitioners in claiming the possession to the property. It was noted that the trial court has held that petitioners had gone to the suit property only for the purposes of performing last rites of Rani and to attend the relatives and visitors and not for the purposes of residing there and also not with the intention of retaining the possession of the suit property.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Poona Ram <\/i>v. Moti Ram<\/i>, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 91<\/a> and Rame Gowda<\/i> v. M. Varadappa Naidu<\/i>, (2004) 1 SCC 769<\/a>, the High Court held that the possession of 12 days and that also for the purposes of mourning, attending to the guests and for performing the last rites cannot be held to be settled possession. It cannot be held that the petitioners were ever in physical possession of the subject property for the purposes of settling in possession of the subject property.<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In such view of the matter, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court. [Ram Prakash v. Raj Kumar,\u00a02020 SCC OnLine Del 78<\/b><\/a>, decided on 06-01-2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner’s suit filed <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[39266,39285,39267,39286],"class_list":["post-224266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-constructive-possession","tag-restoration-of-possession","tag-section-6-of-specific-relief-act","tag-tenable"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner’s suit filed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-16T04:26:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-22T06:16:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-16T04:26:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-22T06:16:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed","og_description":"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner’s suit filed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-16T04:26:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-22T06:16:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/","name":"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-01-16T04:26:29+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-22T06:16:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/16\/del-hc-claim-of-constructive-possession-not-tenable-where-dispute-is-pending-between-person-so-claiming-and-person-through-whom-possession-is-claimed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Claim of constructive possession not tenable where dispute is pending between person so claiming and person through whom possession is claimed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":202107,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/possession-of-immovable-property-on-date-of-dispossession-is-sine-qua-non-for-relief-under-section-6-of-specific-relief-act-investigation-into-title-irrelevant\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":0},"title":"Possession of immovable property on date of dispossession is sine qua non for relief under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act; investigation into title irrelevant","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Biswajit Basu, J. dismissed a civil revision pertaining to grant of relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit under the said section was filed by the petitioner alleging that he was the tenant in the suit\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301048,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/08\/andhra-pradesh-hc-relief-for-separate-possession-is-inherent-in-relief-of-specific-performance-of-contract-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":1},"title":"Granting relief for delivery of possession separately is not required, it is inherent in the decree of specific performance of contract: Andhra Pradesh High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, the interpretation which favours the advancement of the decree by getting its execution is to be preferred.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"andhra pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/andhra-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202163,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/24\/scope-of-section-9-of-the-jk-specific-relief-act-1977-is-limited-to-determination-of-possession-of-the-plaintiff-over-suit-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":2},"title":"Scope of Section 9 of the J&K Specific Relief Act, 1977 is limited to determination of possession of the plaintiff over suit property","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 24, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir: A Single Judge bench comprising of Sanjeev Kumar, J. while dealing with a civil revision petition directed against the judgment of trial court passed in relation to Section 9 of the Jammu & Kashmir Specific Relief Act, 1977 declined to interfere with trial court\u2019s judgment directing re-possession\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":346505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/26\/bombay-hc-rejects-second-appeal-of-brother-claiming-right-property-gifted-father-to-other-son\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Constructive possession enough for gift transaction\u2019; Bombay HC rejects second appeal of brother claiming right to property gifted by father to the other son","author":"Editor","date":"April 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen the donor and donee, who are father and son, are residing together in residential house owned by the father, it is not expected that after gifting the property by way of Hiba, the father would leave the residence.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338700,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/09\/period-of-limitation-to-regain-title-of-property-by-setting-aside-sale-deed-is-3-yrs-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":4},"title":"3 years or 12 years? Supreme Court clarifies the period of limitation to regain title and recover possession of suit property by setting aside the sale deed","author":"Editor","date":"January 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen the suit is based on the title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Limitation for title of property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Limitation-for-title-of-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Limitation-for-title-of-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Limitation-for-title-of-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Limitation-for-title-of-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":315996,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/04\/sc-decision-on-principles-of-adverse-possession-and-limitation-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":224266,"position":5},"title":"Inside Supreme Court\u2019s decision on principles of Adverse Possession and Limitation in property disputes","author":"Editor","date":"March 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA person claiming adverse possession should show, as to on what date he got the possession; the nature of his possession; whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued; and that his possession was open and undisturbed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"principles of Adverse Possession and Limitation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/principles-of-Adverse-Possession-and-Limitation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/principles-of-Adverse-Possession-and-Limitation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/principles-of-Adverse-Possession-and-Limitation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/principles-of-Adverse-Possession-and-Limitation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}