Insurance Caselaws

The insurance company is not liable if the claimant is traveling in an uninsured trailer, regardless of whether the tractor turns out protected :The Supreme Court

- 

Case Title: Dhondubai vs Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725 | CA 5459-5460 OF 2023

Summary

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the adverse possession principle in a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title. The adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact, requiring evidence such as the date, nature, duration, and condition of the possession. The Court emphasized that a person who pleads adverse possession has no equities in their favor, as they are attempting to infringe upon the rights of the rightful owner. Article 65 of the Limitation Act establishes the starting point of limitation in securing an adverse possession order against the defendant. The Court also emphasized the significance of a statute of limitations when initiating a recovery action for property in adverse possession. The implementation of periods of limitation ensures actions are initiated within a specified timeframe, guaranteeing the accessibility of documentary and oral evidence and implementing the maxim "Maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt."

About the case

In a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several critical elements pertaining to the adverse possession principle. The Court reaffirmed that the adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact. (10 SCC 779, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, 2004). The individual asserting adverse possession is required to provide the following evidence: (a) the date of his possession, (b) the nature of his possession, (c) whether the other party was aware of the factum of possession, (d) the duration of his possession, and (e) the condition of his possession in terms of being open and undisturbed.