Under which circumstances the court can grant bail to accused even though there is no specific prayer for bail in appeal petition?

 It was also urged by Mr. Nataraj that in the appeal-petition, the Appellant has only asked for setting aside the impugned judgment and order. No specific prayer for bail has been made. But in our opinion, the plea for bail in the context of the present appeal is implicit. The petition which was transferred to the Division Bench carried prayer of the Appellant for being released on bail and argument advanced by Mr. Grover, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that the High Court itself ought to have granted bail to the Appellant on the basis of available materials. Moreover, the Appellant in the appeal-petition has also asked for bail as interim relief. Since the appeal, in substance, is against the judgment by which prayer for bail was refused, merely based on the manner of framing of reliefs or prayers in the subject-petition, the actual relief sought by the Appellant would not stand eclipsed. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023

Decided On: 05.04.2024

Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Author: Aniruddha Bose, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0271/2024.

Print Page

When relief not sought in prayer clause can be granted by court?

 Mr. Ganesh, however, submitted that such a prayer should be
culled out from prayer no. (iii) which is residual in nature.
Ordinarily, it would be difficult to read into this prayer clause a
relief of substantive nature of issuing the writ of mandamus.
However, we find that there are specific averments to this effect in
the body of the writ petition as well as in the grounds. More
pertinently this relief was specifically pressed and argued in the
High Court which was even entertained by the High Court without
any objections from the respondent to the contrary. Therefore, we
are inclined to examine the plea on merits, though reluctantly.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6929 OF 2012
JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
Dated; 14-5-2015
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Citation;(2015) 7 SCC728

Print Page

Supreme Court Judgments on adverse possession

In Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors. [(2005) 8 SCC 330], in which one of us was a member, this Court held : In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant s possession becomes adverse.

Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. T. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr. [(2006) 7 SCC 570], stating : “It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner’s title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former s hostile action.”

Print Page