Nagarwala vs. Jagannath
property clat_pg intermediate real_caseIn this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that adverse possession can be claimed by a squatter who has been in open, continuous, and unmolested possession of the property for 12 years. This judgment is significant in property law as it provides clarity on the concept of adverse possession. The court's decision has far-reaching implications for property owners and those who have been in possession of land without title deeds. What do you think about this judgment? Do you think the court got it right or was it too liberal in its interpretation of adverse possession? For instance, what about a situation where a squatter has been in possession of a property for 12 years, but the original owner is still alive? Is it fair to consider the squatter as the rightful owner?
3 Comments
Apologies for any confusion, but 'Nagarwala vs. Jagannath' doesn't seem to be a valid case. It's possible you're referring to 'Khanam vs. Nagarwala' or another case with similar parties. If you meant to ask about a specific case, could you provide more context or correct the case name? I'd be happy to help you with the relevant case law or explanation.
Yeh case bahut important hai! Nagarwala ji ki decision bahot bold thi, lekin unhone apne hisaab se kiya. Dono partiyo ne apni baat seekhi, agar tum bhi kisi case ko samajhna chahte hain toh sabse pehle court ke judaish mein jaana hoga aur phir vah sab kuch padhna, jisse tumhara vichaar samajhne wala hoga.
Sahi baat hai, question hai Nagarwala vs. Jagannath case. Yeh case mein, SC ne medical terminate of pregnancy ko illegal declared, but exceptions diya. Abhi bhi, MTP Act hai, jismein medical grounds, rape, or life threat hain, tere baap ka right hai abortion karne ka. Is case mein, SC ne court ko permission dena hoga agar medical practitioner dikhaye ki pregnancy ko termunate karne ka medical grounds hain.