Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 875
- Decided
- 19 November 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the trial court decree because the State cannot acquire title by adverse possession and the burden of proof lay on the State, which failed to prove such possession.
Summary
The plaintiffs, heirs of Amin Lal, sued the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department for possession of land on the basis of revenue records, sale deeds and mutation entries. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the State had not proved adverse possession. The State appealed and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had not established title and that the State’s long possession amounted to adverse possession. On second appeal, the High Court set aside that judgment, holding that by pleading adverse possession the State implicitly admitted the plaintiffs’ title, that the State cannot acquire private property by adverse possession, and that the burden of proof rested on the State. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, dismissing the State’s appeal and restoring the trial court decree.
Issues considered
- Whether the State can invoke the doctrine of adverse possession against its own citizens and whether such a plea implies admission of the plaintiff's title
- Whether the burden of proof in a suit for possession shifts to the defendant when the defendant relies on adverse possession without specifically denying the plaintiff's title
- Whether revenue records and registered sale deeds are admissible evidence to establish ownership
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reappreciating evidence
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VIII Rule 5, s. Section 100
- Evidence Act, 1872s. Section 35
- Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 65
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove their ownership to the land. In
Subjects
Suit for possessionProof of ownershipRevenue recordsAdmissible evidenceOrder VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872Shifting of burden of proofAdverse possession by StatePublic trustSection 100 of the Code of Civil ProcedureJurisdiction of second appellate court
Judgment
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1257 : 2024 INSC 875
The State of Haryana & Anr.
v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12551 of 2024 )
19 November 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit
property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana
and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit
in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants had failed
to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession.
Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an
appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and
dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff
failed to prove their ownership to the land. In second appeal, the
Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of the First Appellate Court
and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court. Whether the
High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the First
Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court
in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit for possession of
land against the appellants/defendants.
Headnotes†
Ownership of Plaintiffs over the Suit Property – Not specifically
denied:
Held: In their written statement before the Trial Court, the
appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of
the suit property – Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of
adverse possession – Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, allegations of fact not denied specifically
are deemed to be admitted – By asserting adverse possession,
the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title. [Para 8]
Relevance of Revenue Records as evidence in title dispute:
Held: The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 records the name of Shri
Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share – Revenue records are
public documents maintained by government officials in the regular
* Author
1258 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section
35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – While it is true that revenue
entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as
evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when
corroborated by other evidence – Further, Registered sale deeds and
mutation records produced by the Respondents establish a chain
of title and cannot be ignored – The plaintiffs have established their
ownership of the suit property. [Paras 8 and 15]
Burden of Proof to establish title – Shifting of:
Held: The appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically
and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted
to the appellants to prove their adverse possession – In the present
case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their title,
which they have established through documentary evidence – The
First Appellate Court erroneously placed the burden of proving
ownership on the plaintiffs, despite the defendants' admission of
their title by pleading adverse possession – The court disregarded
the jamabandi entries and other revenue records without valid
justification. [Paras 9 and 14]
Adverse Possession by State against a Citizen:
Held: It is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim
adverse possession over the property of its own citizens – In
Vidya Devi v. State of H.P ((2020) 2 SCC 569), this Court
emphatically held that the State cannot be permitted to take the
plea of adverse possession – Allowing the State to appropriate
private property through adverse possession would undermine
the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the
government. [Paras 10, 11 and 15]
Adverse Possession – Constituents:
Held: The appellants' possession, as evidenced by the Misal
Hakiyat of 1879-80, was permissive and conditional – Such
permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse
possession – The acts relied upon by the appellants such as placing
bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing
a boundary wall in 1980 do not constitute adverse possession –
Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open,
peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period – In
this case, the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility
and the requisite duration. [Paras 11 and 12]
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1259
The State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
Jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908:
Held: Appellants’ contention that the High Court overstepped its
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
reappreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact has
no legs to stand – The High Court found that the First Appellate
Court had ignored material evidence and legal principles,
leading to a perverse judgment – Therefore, the High Court was
justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure – The High Court's judgment is based
on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence.
[Paras 13 and 15]
Case Law Cited
Vidya Devi v. State of H.P [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC
569 – relied on.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872
List of Keywords
Suit for possession; Proof of ownership; Revenue records;
Admissible evidence; Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908; Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872; Shifting of burden of
proof; Adverse possession by State; Public trust; Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction of second appellate court.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12551 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3818 of 1987
Appearances for Parties
Vikramjit Banarjee, A.S.G., Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G., Samar Vijay
Singh, Shivang Jain, Varun Goel, Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Saurabh
Gupta, Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv., Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, Amaan Khan,
Satyendra Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
1260 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 31st
January 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in RSA No. 3818 of 1987. The High Court allowed the
regular second appeal filed by the respondents herein (original
plaintiffs), setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court
and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the
plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants
(original defendants), namely the State of Haryana and the Public
Works Department (PWD), have preferred this appeal.
3. The facts of the case leading up to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. The dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas
Pukhta comprised in Khasra No. 2348 (0-10 Biswas) and
Khasra No. 2458 (0-8 Biswas), situated within the revenue
estate of Bahadurgarh, Haryana. The land is located on both
sides of National Highway No. 10, which connects Delhi and
Bahadurgarh.
3.2. On 28th March 1981, the original plaintiffs, namely, Shri Amin
Lal and Shri Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession of the suit
property before the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bahadurgarh.
They claimed ownership of the land based on revenue records
and alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the
land approximately three and a half years prior to the filing of
the suit. The plaintiffs contended that despite repeated requests
and a legal notice served under Section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the defendants failed to vacate the land.
3.3. The defendants, the State of Haryana and PWD, contested
the suit by filing a written statement dated 17th September,
1985. They raised preliminary objections, asserting that they
had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the
suit land since 1879-80. They claimed that their possession
was open, hostile, and adverse to the plaintiffs, and as such,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1261
The State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
they had become owners by way of adverse possession. The
defendants also contended that the land had been used as a
store by the PWD and its predecessor entities, including the
District Board and Zila Parishad, for over a century.
3.4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
main issues:
“A. Whether the State of Haryana has become
owner of the suit land by way of adverse
possession?
B. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to
file the present suit?”
3.5. The plaintiffs examined seven witnesses and produced revenue
records, including copies of jamabandis (Exhibits P1 to P9).
The defendants examined ten witnesses and produced various
documents, including revenue records dating back to 1879-80
(Exhibits D1 to D22).
3.6. On 2nd May 1986, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour
of the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants had failed to prove
that they had become owners by adverse possession. Mere
placement of bitumen drums and construction of a boundary wall
in 1980 did not constitute adverse possession. The plaintiffs had
locus standi to file the suit, as they were recorded as owners
in the jamabandis. The defendants’ possession, if any, was
permissive and not hostile.
3.7. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, the defendants filed an
appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak. The First Appellate
Court, after reappreciating the evidence, allowed the appeal
on 8th October 1987 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The
Appellate Court held that:
• The plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership, as they did not
produce the sale deeds or mutation records establishing
their title.
• The jamabandi entries in favor of the plaintiffs were doubtful
and appeared to be manipulated.
• The defendants and their predecessors had been in
continuous possession of the suit land since 1879-80.
1262 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
• The defendants’ possession was open, continuous,
and adverse, thereby perfecting their title by adverse
possession.
• The plaintiffs were attempting to grab the land by
manipulating revenue records.
3.8. The plaintiffs filed RSA No. 3818 of 1987 before the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the judgment of the First
Appellate Court. The High Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:
“I. Whether the State can set up the plea of adverse
possession, and does it imply admitting the title
of the plaintiffs?
II. Whether the judgment and decree of the
Lower Appellate Court suffer from illegality and
perversity?”
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that:
• By taking the plea of adverse possession, the defendants
impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs.
• The State cannot claim title through adverse possession
against its own citizens.
• The defendants failed to specifically deny the plaintiffs’
title as required under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
• The possession of the defendants was permissive, as
evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80.
• The First Appellate Court erred in shifting the burden
of proof onto the plaintiffs and in not appreciating the
evidence correctly.
3.9. Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the defendants (now
appellants) have approached this Court.
4. We have heard Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Appellants and Shri Santosh Paul, learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondents.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1263
The State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned A.S.G, appearing on behalf of the
appellant the State of Haryana and its authorities, has argued that
the High Court erred in overturning the well-reasoned judgment of
the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.
The gist of his arguments is as follows:
(i). Plaintiffs’ Failure to Prove Title: The appellants assert that the
plaintiffs did not produce any substantive evidence to establish
their ownership of the suit property. Despite opportunities provided
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs
failed to present any sale deeds or title documents. Mere reliance
on jamabandi (revenue records) is insufficient to confer title, as
revenue entries do not create or extinguish ownership rights.
(ii). Burden of Proof Misplaced: The appellants further argue
that the High Court incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto
the defendants to establish who the real owner is. In a suit for
possession, the plaintiff must stand on the strength of their
own title. The appellants cite precedents to emphasize that
the weakness of the defendant’s case cannot be a ground for
granting relief to the plaintiffs.
(iii). Adverse Possession and Limitation: While acknowledging
that the State cannot claim adverse possession against a
private individual, the appellants maintain that they have been
in continuous, peaceful possession of the suit land since 1879.
Under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, such
possession raises a presumption of ownership in their favor.
Moreover, the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by limitation under Article
65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as they failed to challenge the
appellants’ possession within the prescribed period.
(iv). Necessity of Declaratory Relief: The appellants contend
that the plaintiffs should have filed a suit for declaration of title
before seeking possession, especially when their ownership
was in dispute. Without a declaratory decree establishing their
title, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for possession.
(v). Conduct of the Plaintiffs: The appellants highlight that the
First Appellate Court had termed the plaintiffs as “land grabbers”
who manipulated revenue records to claim ownership. The
High Court, however, did not address these observations or
the detailed reasoning provided by the First Appellate Court.
1264 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The arguments advanced on behalf of respondents by Shri Santosh
Paul, learned Senior Advocate are summarized hereunder:
(i). Admission of Plaintiffs’ Title by the Defendants: The
respondents assert that the appellants did not specifically deny
their ownership of the suit property in their written statement
before the Trial Court. By taking the plea of adverse possession,
the appellants implicitly admitted the respondents’ title. Under
Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, failure to deny
an allegation of fact amounts to an admission.
(ii). State Cannot Claim Adverse Possession: The respondents
argue that the State cannot perfect title over private property
through adverse possession against its own citizens. Allowing
such a claim would be contrary to the principles of a welfare
State and undermine citizens’ constitutional rights.
(iii). Permissive Possession by the State: The respondents
contend that the appellants’ possession of the suit land was
permissive and not adverse. The Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80
(Exhibit DW10/1) indicates that the State’s possession was
conditional, described as “Bikhar Bahali Kaza,” meaning till the
existence of an orchard. Acts such as placing bitumen drums
or constructing temporary structures do not amount to adverse
possession. The Trial Court rightly held that such acts do not
constitute possession sufficient to establish adverse possession.
(iv). Establishment of Ownership through Revenue Records: The
respondents have established their ownership through continuous
entries in the revenue records (jamabandis) from 1904-05 to
2019-20. Plaintiff No. 1 derived title through a registered sale
deed dated 5th July 1960, and Plaintiff No. 2 through a sale deed
dated 12th March 1973. Mutations were duly sanctioned based
on these sale deeds. Revenue records are records of rights and
are admissible evidence to prove ownership.
(v). Burden of Proof Lies on Defendants: Since the appellants did
not deny the respondents’ title, the burden was on the appellants
to prove that they had become owners by adverse possession.
The appellants failed to discharge this burden. The Trial Court
correctly found that the appellants’ possession, if any, began
in 1980 and was insufficient to establish adverse possession.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1265
The State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and perused
the records, the core issue before us is whether the High Court was
correct in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court
and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the
respondents (plaintiffs). The appellants challenge the High Court’s
decision on several grounds, which we shall address in their turn.
8. The appellants contention that plaintiff failed to prove their title and
ownership is completely misplaced for the reasons and analysis
made hereunder:
8.1 We find this argument unconvincing for several reasons: In their
written statement before the Trial Court, the appellants did not
specifically deny the plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit property.
Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession.
Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be
admitted. By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have
impliedly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.
8.2 The plaintiffs relied on jamabandi entries to establish their
ownership. The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Exhibit P1)
records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of
half share. Revenue records are public documents maintained
by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry
a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not
by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence
of possession and can support a claim of ownership when
corroborated by other evidence.
8.3 The respondents have produced copies of registered sale
deeds and mutation records before this Court, which were
part of the additional documents filed with the counter-affidavit.
Plaintiff No. 1, Shri Amin Lal, derived title through a registered
sale deed dated 5th July 1960, and mutation No. 8329 was
sanctioned on 20th April 1982. Plaintiff No. 2, Shri Ashok
Kumar, derived his title through a registered sale deed dated
12th March 1973, and mutation No. 8330 was sanctioned on
20th April 1982. These documents establish a chain of title
and cannot be ignored.
1266 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8.4 The appellants did not dispute the plaintiffs’ title in their pleadings
or during the trial. The First Appellate Court’s finding that the
plaintiffs are not the true owners is based on conjecture and
lacks evidentiary support. The appellants cannot now, at this
appellate stage, challenge the plaintiffs’ ownership without
having raised a specific denial earlier.
9. The appellants’ next submission that the burden of proof lay on
the plaintiffs to establish their title is equally not borne out from the
records. It is a well-settled principle that in a suit for possession
based on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership. In the
present case, the plaintiffs have done so by producing revenue
records and, subsequently, the registered sale deeds and mutation
entries. Furthermore, as the appellants failed to deny the plaintiffs’
title specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden
has shifted to the appellants to prove their adverse possession. In the
present case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their
title, which they have established through documentary evidence.
10. The appellants claim that due to their long and continuous possession
of the suit property since 1879-80, they have perfected their title, is
also not sustainable in law. However, it is a fundamental principle that
the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its
own citizens. In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P,1 this Court emphatically
held that the State cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse
possession. The relevant paragraphs from this judgement are
reproduced hereunder:
“12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of
law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their
property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi
v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC (2013) 1 SCC
353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that
the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition,
requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The
State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law
cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided
by the Constitution.
1 [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1267
The State of Haryana & Anr. v.
Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors.
12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
[State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is
now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory
right, but also a human right. Human rights have been
considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to
shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights
have gained a multi-faceted dimension.
12.11. We are surprised by the plea taken by the State
before the High Court, that since it has been in continuous
possession of the land for over 42 years, it would
tantamount to “adverse” possession. The State being
a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea
of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a
person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title
over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot
be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking
the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of
its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.”
11. Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse
possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens
and erode public trust in the government. Therefore, the appellants’
plea of adverse possession is untenable in law. The appellants’
possession, as evidenced by the Misal Hakiyat of 1879-80
(Exhibit DW10/1), was permissive and conditional. The entry describes
the possession as “Bikhar Bahali Kaza,” meaning till the existence
of an orchard. Such permissive possession cannot be the basis for
a claim of adverse possession.
12. Furthermore, the acts relied upon by the appellants—such as placing
bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing
a boundary wall in 1980—do not constitute adverse possession.
Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open,
peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period. In
this case, the appellants’ possession lacks the element of hostility
and the requisite duration.
13. The appellants last contention that the High Court overstepped its
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
reappreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact also has
1268 [2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
no legs to stand. The High Court had framed substantial questions of
law regarding whether the State can claim adverse possession against
its own citizens and whether taking the plea of adverse possession
implies admission of the plaintiffs’ title. These are substantial questions
of law that justify the High Court’s interference. The High Court
found that the First Appellate Court had ignored material evidence
and legal principles, leading to a perverse judgment. Therefore, the
High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
14. The findings of the First Appellate Court’s judgment are flawed for
various reasons. The court erroneously placed the burden of proving
ownership on the plaintiffs, despite the defendants’ admission of
their title by pleading adverse possession. The court disregarded the
jamabandi entries and other revenue records without valid justification.
The court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs are “land grabbers” is not
supported by evidence and appears to be based on conjecture.
Therefore, the High Court rightly set aside the First Appellate Court’s
judgment, which suffered from legal infirmities and misappreciation
of evidence.
15. In view of the above analysis, we find no merit in the appellants’
contentions. The High Court’s judgment is based on sound legal
principles and correct appreciation of evidence. The plaintiffs have
established their ownership of the suit property, and the State cannot
claim adverse possession against its own citizens.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Suit for possession"Sign in to search