Comments:-
With deepest respect to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I humbly submit that it is not that the law gives legitimacy to a dishonest act of a person taking forcible possession of land belonging to a true owner, but rather that is the effect of the law of adverse possession. It has different connotations. A person even if he is a true owner must come out with his case within a reasonable time which is fixed in India at twelve years. Beyond that period it is increasingly and grossly unfair to put the person in possession to prove that he has the ownership of the same. A person in possession of immoveable property for twelve years without any objection from those who could have proved their title within that time is reasoably expected to believe that his possession will not be disturbed and that his title will not be called into question. Besides, in the meantime he may have sold the property to others on the said basis and new purchasers will then suffer injustice on this account. The question of title like litigation must have some end. Otherwise, you might be called upon to prove the title of your predecessor in title for a hundred years which may be quite impossible. Undoubtedly, if a person has taken forcibly possession for twelve years the law gives him protection. But the law also gives protection to a person who has settled possession of the property, leaving the other to endure the high costs of litigation. Cannot it be then said that the law is protecting the dishonest. With deepest respect to the judgment of the Apex Court I humbly submit that if the law on adverse possession is changed, every case will drag on like the Ayodhya case, and that too by the law of the land.
With deepest respect to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I humbly submit that it is not that the law gives legitimacy to a dishonest act of a person taking forcible possession of land belonging to a true owner, but rather that is the effect of the law of adverse possession. It has different connotations. A person even if he is a true owner must come out with his case within a reasonable time which is fixed in India at twelve years. Beyond that period it is increasingly and grossly unfair to put the person in possession to prove that he has the ownership of the same. A person in possession of immoveable property for twelve years without any objection from those who could have proved their title within that time is reasoably expected to believe that his possession will not be disturbed and that his title will not be called into question. Besides, in the meantime he may have sold the property to others on the said basis and new purchasers will then suffer injustice on this account. The question of title like litigation must have some end. Otherwise, you might be called upon to prove the title of your predecessor in title for a hundred years which may be quite impossible. Undoubtedly, if a person has taken forcibly possession for twelve years the law gives him protection. But the law also gives protection to a person who has settled possession of the property, leaving the other to endure the high costs of litigation. Cannot it be then said that the law is protecting the dishonest. With deepest respect to the judgment of the Apex Court I humbly submit that if the law on adverse possession is changed, every case will drag on like the Ayodhya case, and that too by the law of the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment