1.

Possession and Adverse Possession: If person A has been in continuous possession of the
property since purchasing it in 2014, they may have a claim under the principle of adverse
possession. Adverse possession refers to a situation where a person who is not the legal
owner of a property becomes the owner by occupying and using it for a certain period of
time without the owner's consent. However, the specifics of adverse possession laws vary by
jurisdiction and can be complex.

2. Notice and Due Process: In many legal systems, it is a fundamental principle that parties
must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in court proceedings that affect their
rights. If person A was not given notice of the title suit and had no opportunity to present
their case, this might be a basis for challenging the court's decision. The lack of notice and
due process could potentially render the court's decision invalid.

3. Fraud or Collusion: If it can be demonstrated that the boundary wall destroyer and the party
who filed the title suit colluded or engaged in fraudulent behavior to deprive person A of
their property, this might provide grounds for legal action. Fraud and collusion could
undermine the validity of the title suit and subsequent court decision.

4. Statute of Limitations: Depending on the specific circumstances and the applicable laws,
there might be a statute of limitations that restricts the time within which certain legal
actions can be initiated. If person A's rights were violated in the past but they were unaware
of it until recently, they might still be able to take legal action within the statute of
limitations.

5. Property Rights and Ownership Documentation: It's important for person A to have proper
documentation proving their ownership of the property, including the purchase agreement,
sale deed, and any other relevant documents. These documents can be crucial in establishing
their legal ownership and protecting their rights.

Related case law which I think it may be usefull

1. Adverse Possession (Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65): If Person A has been in continuous,
open, and hostile possession of the property for a certain period of time without
interruption, they might be able to claim adverse possession. This could potentially protect
their ownership rights against claims made by others.

2. Right to Property (Constitution of India, Article 300A): The Constitution of India recognizes
the right to property as a fundamental right. If Person A's property rights were violated
without due process or proper legal procedure, they might have grounds to challenge the
action on constitutional grounds.

3. Due Process and Natural Justice: The principles of due process and natural justice require
that parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their rights are affected
by a court decision. If Person A was not properly informed or given an opportunity to present
their case during the title suit proceedings, they might be able to challenge the decision on
the basis of denial of due process.

4. Fraud and Collusion (Indian Contract Act, 1872): If it can be proven that the title suit was
filed as a result of fraud or collusion between the boundary wall destroyer and the other
party, Person A might have grounds to challenge the validity of the court decision.
5. Estoppel: If the court decision was made without properly informing Person A, they might
argue that they were not given a chance to defend their rights, which could potentially give
rise to a claim based on the doctrine of estoppel.

6. Specific Relief Act, 1963: The Specific Relief Act provides for remedies that can be sought by
a person whose rights to property have been infringed upon. Depending on the
circumstances, Person A might be able to seek relief through this Act.

Related case (Note this is collected by basic search need to read case)

1. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013): This judgment emphasized the
importance of registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) for serious offenses, including
property-related disputes, and laid down guidelines on when and how an FIR should be
registered.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997): While this case primarily dealt with environmental
issues, it established the concept of "public trust doctrine" which holds that natural
resources including land are held in trust by the government for the public, and the
government has a duty to protect and manage these resources for the benefit of the people.

3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Chandra

Agarwal (2016): This case highlighted the importance of transparency in land acquisitions
and the need to balance the interests of both the state and the landowners.

4. Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011): This judgment discussed the principles of
adverse possession and reiterated the conditions required for a successful claim of adverse
possession.

5. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980): This case emphasized the concept of equity and the
need for the state to balance individual property rights with the larger public interest.

6. Murlidhar Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (2011): This judgment clarified the distinction between
possession and ownership and reiterated that mere possession does not necessarily confer
title.

7. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995): This case established that if a
government action results in the deprivation of property, the affected person is entitled to
compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Grounds in favor of Person A: (person A , who bought property in 2014)

1. Adverse Possession: Person A has been in continuous possession of the property since 2014,
openly using and maintaining it without interruption.

2. Statute of Limitations: The destruction of the boundary wall occurred after several years of
peaceful possession, potentially exceeding any applicable statute of limitations for
challenging ownership.
3. Lack of Notice: Person A was not informed about the title suit proceedings or given an
opportunity to present their case in court.

4. Denial of Due Process: The court did not follow due process and natural justice principles by
failing to provide Person A with notice and an opportunity to defend their ownership rights.

5. Constitutional Violation: Person A's property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution
were violated due to the lack of proper legal procedure and notice.

6. Unfair Dispossession: The destruction of the boundary wall and subsequent claim over the
property by the boundary wall destroyer amounts to an unfair and unjust dispossession of
Person A's rightful property.

7. Collusion and Fraud: If evidence shows collusion or fraud between the boundary wall
destroyer and the party who initiated the title suit, this would indicate an unfair and
unethical attempt to take away Person A's property.

8. Public Interest: Preserving Person A's property rights is in the public interest as it upholds
the rule of law, ensures fairness, and prevents arbitrary dispossession.

9. Investment and Improvements: Person A has invested time, money, and effort in improving
the property, indicating their intention to maintain ownership and suggesting unfairness in
losing it.

10. Prejudice and Harship: Person A may suffer undue prejudice and hardship as a result of the
sudden dispossession and lack of proper legal recourse.

11. Presumption of Ownership: The continuous and unchallenged possession of Person A

creates a presumption of ownership, which should be respected and upheld.

12. Equity and Justice: Upholding Person A's ownership rights aligns with principles of equity,
justice, and protecting individuals from arbitrary deprivation of property.

13. Good Faith Purchase: Person A bought the property in good faith, unaware of any pending
title suit or disputes. Their innocent involvement should be considered when determining
ownership.

14. Innocent Possession: Person A's possession of the property was innocent and without any
fraudulent intent, making them less susceptible to adverse possession claims.

15. Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware): Person A made the purchase based on the existing property
records and had no reason to doubt their validity. They shouldn't be penalized for the seller's
actions or omissions.

16. No Prior Notice of Dispute: Person A had no knowledge of any existing title dispute, and
their lack of involvement in the dispute until after the destruction of the boundary wall is
unfair.

17. Unnotified Court Proceedings: The court proceedings and decisions were carried out
without notifying Person A, denying them a chance to present their side of the case.

18. Estoppel by Deed: If the seller of the property conveyed a valid title to Person A, they should
be estopped from later disputing that title.
 19. Promissory Estoppel: If Person A relied on representations or promises made by the seller
that the property had a clear title, they might have a claim based on promissory estoppel.

20. Public Policy and Legal Certainty: Upholding Person A's ownership rights supports the public
policy of legal certainty and stability in property transactions.

21. Innocent Third Party: Person A is an innocent third party who had no involvement in the
underlying title dispute and should not bear the consequences of others' actions.

22. Efforts to Settle: Person A's attempts to resolve the situation amicably, such as seeking
mediation or negotiations, demonstrate their commitment to a fair resolution.

23. Previous Court Orders: If there were previous court orders confirming Person A's ownership,
these orders should carry weight in establishing their rightful ownership.

24. No Fault of Person A: Person A did not contribute to the destruction of the boundary wall or
the title dispute and should not suffer the consequences of others' actions.

25. Equitable Principles: Equitable principles dictate that Person A should not be unjustly
deprived of their property due to circumstances beyond their control.

#sir mujhe lga easy hoga, lekin kuch jayede difficult h#