The Bombay High Court has dismissed a property second appeal, holding that merely pleading adverse possession does not shift the burden of proof to the true owner where occupation began with permission.
Judge / Bench — Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
The 21 October 2026 judgment in Chandrahas Jethalal Patel’s appeal affirmed findings that a relative had entered permissively and later built partly on the owners’ land. Long occupation did not establish possession hostile to their title.
The court also rejected a belated objection to the property description: the defendants understood the encroachment, which the survey map identified. Permissive possession did not start Article 65’s limitation period. The appeal was dismissed with costs, leaving the possession and demolition decree intact.
Advocates appearing — Appellants — R.D. Soni, instructed by Ram & Co. Respondent 2 — D.S. Mhaispurkar. Respondents 5–6 — Rajendra M. Haridas. Other respondents — Not named in the judgment.