Jain Carim vs Rahim Dholl – clr volume 2 page 118_2

In JAIN CARIM v. RAHIM DHOLL, the dispute centered on the validity of a claim to land by adverse possession, where the plaintiff asserted title by purchase, while the defendant, through longstanding family possession, claimed prescriptive title under local ordinances. The central issues were whether the defendant’s mother’s possession constituted adverse possession as defined by multiple Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 22 of 1871, and whether uninterrupted, exclusive possession, absent acknowledgment of the plaintiff’s title, met the statutory requirements. It was held that continuous, independent occupation, without payment or recognition of another’s ownership, sufficed to vest prescriptive title. The decision clarified that the statutory definition of adverse possession supersedes i