THE MERE PASSAGE OF AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF POSSESSION DOESN’T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO THE RIGHT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION

THE MERE PASSAGE OF AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF POSSESSION DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO THE RIGHT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION, AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

THE MERE PASSAGE OF AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF POSSESSION DOESN’T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO THE RIGHT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION, AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

The recent observation by the Supreme Court emphasized that merely possessing a piece of land for an extended period does not automatically establish a claim to that land under adverse possession principles [Government of Kerala and Another v. Joseph and Others]. A panel of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Read more

By Admin, ago