Virendra Nath Thr. P.A. Holder R.R. ... vs Mohd. Jamil & Ors

The Supreme Court held that under Section 9A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, a claim for adverse possession must be substantiated by clear evidence. The Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order, which correctly identified Jan Mohammad's possession as permissive due to his status as a mortgagee, as per Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appeal was allowed, restoring the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and dismissing Jan Mohammad's claim for ownership by adverse possession.