Adverse Possession

  1. Adverse possession tenant-at-will cannot claim his possession as adverse against the true owner unless he repudiates the title openly. M. Sultan v. Mst. Hanifa Begum 1992 SCR 87 (A)
  2. Suit for possession — Joint owner-lawful for the possession of whole property from trespasser.  Muhammad Sultan v. Mst. Hanifa Begum 1992 SCR 87 (B)
  3. The possession of one co-sharer would be deemed to be the possession of all the co-sharers — The nature of possession of a co-sharer cannot be said as adverse to the other co-sharer. Beero v. Mst. Said Bi  1992 SCR 286 (C)
  4. Abatement of suit–necessary party — Where a party sold his total share in his life time — He is not a necessary party. Maqbool Hussain v. Jamal Din & others 1992 SCR 392 (A)
  5. Necessary party — If a defendant or plaintiff is not a necessary party the death of such party would not effect the suit — No abatement arises. Maqbool H. v. Jamal Din & others 1992 SCR 392 (B)
  6. If ouster of a co-sharer is established as a result of denial of his title, the possession would definitely be adverse to the co-sharer who is out of possession-There is no rule of law that the possession of a co-sharer cannot be adverse to the other co-sharer in all cases and under all circumstances. Ali haider Khan v.  Muhammad Aziz Khan 1993 SCR 170 (A)
  7. Peaceful possession howsoever long it may be, would not change the nature of possession as adverse to the owners of the land- mere non-payment of share in produce or the rent would not render possession of tenant as adverse against the landlord.  Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Latif 1993 SCR 335 (B)
  8. Mere peaceful possession would not change the nature of possession as adverse when the oral sale has not been proved. Muhammad Ayub v. Adalat Khan 1993 SCR 338 (A)
  9. Adverse possession — Proof of — Documentary evidence corroborated by oral evidence to the effect that respondents had been occupying suit land as its owner for more than 40 years without interruption or interference — Respondents possession remained uninterrupted for a period of more than 12 years to the exclusion of true owners. M. Hanif  v. M. Latif Khan 2000 SCR 322 (B)
  10. Adverse possession — Agreement-to-sell — Although agreement-to-sell itself does not confer any title — If in pursuance of an agreement-to-sell or under a defective title the possession was handed over to the transferee and they remained in possession considering themselves as owners to the exclusion of true owner, their possession becomes adverse. M. Hanif  v. M. Latif Khan 2000 SCR 322 (D)
  11. Plaintiff is not debarred from taking the alternate plea of adverse possession in case he fails to prove the transaction of sale in his favour. M. Bashir v. Lal Din Arif and 5 others  2002 SCR 83 (B)
  12. To prove an adverse possession against co-sharer the total ouster of other co-sharer must be proved. Muhammad Bashir v. Lal Din Arif and 5 others 2002 SCR 83 (E)
  13. Possession of appellant over half of portion of plot which was originally allotted had already become adverse at least in the knowledge of party who executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.4. Muhammad Bashir v. Lal Din Arif and 5 others 2002 SCR 83 (F)
  14. Adverse possession — Claim of — Admission of ownership — When a suit was filed for adverse possession by claiming that it has matured and ripened into ownership then the ownership is admitted because the adverse possession is always claimed against the true owners. Majeed H. Shah  v. Muzaffar Hussain Shah and others 2007 SCR 325 (A) PLJ 1984 SC (AJK) 108 rel.
  15. —See pages Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Muhammad Sarwar Khan 2017 SCR 733 (E, F, G & H)
error: Content is protected !!