• Land dispute - adverse possession - agreement of sale - injunction

1)	ALOO is the owner of land-1965
2)	ALOO sold land to MIRCHI— through registered sale deed-1965
3)	But ALOO’S sons PALAK and PANEER occupied the land-1966-83
4)	ALOO’ s sons PALAK and PANEER became owners by virtue of adverse possession against MIRCHI...Theres is no declaration to this effect..1983
5)	PALAK and PANEER sold the lands to CABBAGE under agreement and registered irrevocable gpa for consideration and delivered possession.1983
6)	CABBAGE got his name mutated based on agreement-1983
7)	CABBAGE on Knowing MIRCHI ’s ownership, obtained original deed from MIRCHI and relinquishment in his favour.1983
8)	Later CABBAGE got into land acquisition dispute with the government in 1985

9)	Cabbage wins case against govt over land acquisition -2017
10)	PALAK and PANEER ‘S LR’S became greedy and instituted suit for cancellation of agreement and irrevocable GPA and prayed for injunction 
 (but cabbage is in possession )-2018
11)	Total period of possession of cabbage is 35 yrs.
12)	Relief available to CABBAGE ??
Asked 5 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu

11 answers received in 1 day.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

11 Answers

Dear Sir/Madam, first of all arise main question is that, after purchase the land by Mirchi from Aloo, the mirchi has got khatha in his name with physical possession?, if yes, the mirchi very well known about to enter into the said land by Aloos children without any objection cum obstruction, the Aloos children will get adverse possession but they have to file suit for declaration of adverse possession against the said Mirchi and got the decree in this regard, if not decree for the same they will not get rights over the said land. When they have no right over the said land how they can sell the said land to the Cabbage?, and also they have no right to execute sale agreement and GPA for the same as well as relinquishment deed infavour of Cabbage. The LRs of Palak and Paneer's case is not stand in the eye of law as well as before the court, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Cabbage is claim adverse possession against the Mirchi and his legal heirs by proving adverse possession contents as per law with support of documents.

C. V. Jadhav
Advocate, Bangalore
545 Answers
18 Consultations

4.7 on 5.0

Cabbage can claim the title to the property on the basis of adverse possession evidencing the sale agreement and physical possession of the property.

The civil suit against the land acquisition proceedings and 35 years long possession shall be substantial evidence to prove his possession

Cabbage has to initiate a suit for declaration of title and and also an application to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the disposal of the main suit.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
81467 Answers
1827 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Dont lure the expert lawyers here, not everyone will like your offer and not everyone will be greedy to give you a favorable reply or opinion.

Every individual lawyer will be giving his/her own opinion, and it may differ with others.

My opinion is that to safeguard and secure the property cabbage can file a suit for declaration on the basis of adverse possession and the evidence in his side is the sale agreement, land acquisition dispute papers, and physical possession.

power of attorney deed is not a title document

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
81467 Answers
1827 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1) the LRS would not succeed in setting aside sale deed as land was sold by registered sale deed and irrevocable GPA

2) cabbage is in possession of land for over 35 years

3) the LRS would have to explain delay in taking legal proceedings

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
91289 Answers
6810 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

your query has been answered . agreement would not be set aside after lapse of 35 years

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
91289 Answers
6810 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The demand by Palak and Paneer are stale one and can's sustain in eyes of law.

Ganesh Singh
Advocate, New Delhi
6646 Answers
16 Consultations

4.5 on 5.0

1. Palak and Paneer had perfected their title to the land by adverse possession (1966 to 1983). Their occupation of the land was for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the owner MIRCHI.

2. Mirchi has not raised any dispute against the title claimed by Palak and Paneer, as can be made out from your query. Mirchi has also given the original title document in his name to Cabbage, implying that mirchi has no claim or interest in the Land.

3. So palak and Paneer would become co-owners of the land by adverse possession.

4. Palak and Paneer then sold land to Cabbage under agreement and a registered gpa against consideration. So they received their consideration for the sale of the land to Cabbage. So cabbage becomes owner.

5. Now once palak and Paneer have sold and given up their rights in the Land in their respective lifetime, then their legal heirs have no business to challenge the sale effected by Palak and Paneer. Palak and Paneer were owners of the land and they could deal with it in any manner whatsoever in their lifetime by selling or gifting or willing away the same. The legal heirs have no say in that during the lifetime of palak and Paneer and after their demise.

6. The land already having been sold by Palak and Paneer in their lifetime, then nothing survives for the legal heirs to now challenge such sale.

7. It's very clear. Owner can do whatever he wants with his property during his lifetime. After the owner dies, his legal heirs cannot all of a sudden surface and challenge the transactions done by the owner in his lifetime. Any such action is bound to fail in a court of law.

8. Worth noting that Cabbage's name also got mutated as holder of the land and he also won against the govt in the Land acquisition matter. Had the legal heirs of palak and Paneer had any right in the Land, the govt could have fought against them in the Land acquisition matter and not with cabbage.

9. So the suit filed by legal heirs of palak and Paneer is bound to fail. You can immediately make an application under order 11 rule 7 of CPC for rejection of plaint since the plaintiffs do not have any cause of action against you. Also raise the preliminary issue of limitation that the suit ought to be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. The transaction between palak and Paneer on one hand and cabbage on other hand, happened in the year 1983. And the legal heirs are filing a suit now in 2018!!! Is that some joke?!! It's clearly barred by limitation

10. So before any hearing takes place in the matter, I advise you to immediately file a notice of motion to reject and dismiss the suit on the grounds of 1. No cause of action and 2. Suit barred by limitation

Yusuf Rampurawala
Advocate, Mumbai. E: adv.yusuf.rampurawala@gmail.com
7193 Answers
79 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

adverse possession can be claimed only as defense by palak , paneer

suit by palak , paneer for declaration that they are absolute owners would not be maintainable

palak , paneer legal heirs would not be granted any relief in suit filed by them against cabbage as irrevocable POA was executed by palak paneer and they had executed registered agreement in favour of cabbage

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
91289 Answers
6810 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Mirchi is out of the scene or subject because palak and paneer have taken possession of the property way back in the year 1966 though this property was sold by a registered sale deed to Mirchi by aloo, the father of palak and paneer.

This may be an offence under anti land grabbing act or criminal trespass, but Mirchi did not resist nor filed any case against palak and paneer on this and had remained silent thereafter.

This is adverse to his knowledge hence law of adverse possession operates in favor of palak and paneer, therefore any claim towards title by Mirchi at this stage is not maintainable.

So dragging Mirchi into the scene may not be advantageous to you.

Now the option before cabbage is to establish his title to the property through due process of law, so a suit for declaration and a temporary injunction against the LRs of palak and paneer as interim relief is suggested.

The Idea of perpetual injunction or any other action agaisnt them may be time consuming and non-effective.

It may not yield desired fruit.

Discuss with your advocate at length and decide further action which would be more effective and conducive.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
81467 Answers
1827 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The idea of filing a petition under order VII Rule 11 shall be useful only if they file a suit against cabbage.

However the effectiveness bases on the law of limitation may not ascertained for various factors involved in it.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
81467 Answers
1827 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Dear Mr. Cabbage or whoever,

Kind of quandary, on what ground such suit even admitted. Title of Palak and P was unsettled nor any nod/declaration of court regard to adverse possession, To some extant was rectify by getting release deed from Mirchi,

Neither theory of adverse possession available to P N P and other for a period of 1966-83, as they are dispossess long back, and perfect title acquired by Cabbage under agreement and registered irrevocable gpa for consideration and delivered possession.1983.

No registered Sale Deed, just a matter of evasion of stamp duty,

Suit not only barred by Limitation, but frivolous litigation for lack of locus standi,

An act to obtained decree of court by misleading and false facts, Better invoke sec 304 of CrPC.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
21774 Answers
31 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer