KNOW YOUR Rights

Criminal Case vs. Civil Case: Distinctions
Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:
Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole.
Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment.
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case.
Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable.
Crimes are Offenses Against the State
That means that even though one person might murder a particular person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.
Differences in Punishment
Civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something, known as injunctions. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines. In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.
The Standard of Proof
Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

Adverse possession - Means a hostile assertion, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner - The person who bases his title on adverse possession must show, by clear and unequivocal evidence, that the possession was hostile to the real owner and it amounted to the denial of his title to the property claimed - In deciding whether the acts alleged by the person constitute adverse possession, regard must be given to the animus of the person doing such acts, which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case - It is needless to observe that where the possession can be referred to a lawful title, it would not be considered to be adverse, the reason being that the person whose possession can be drawn to a lawful title, will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another’s title - Simply put, one who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of the other’s title, make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420





Adverse possession - Simple possession - Permissive possession - The non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time may affect the title of the owner under certain circumstances - The acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner - There is a lot of difference between simple possession and adverse possession - Every possession is not adverse possession - The defendants will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession for howsoever long it may be – There is no absolute requirement to deem the mere possession of the suit property by the defendants to amount to adverse possession over the suit property - This would be in clear violation of the basic rights of the actual owner of the property. Held, Until the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to that of the real owner, the defendants continue in permissive possession of the property. Only if the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to the interest of the real owner and the real owner fails to file the suit for possession within 12 years, as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, from the point of time the possession by the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs, the real owner loses his title over the property - The defendants are not only required to prove that they have been in possession of the suit property continuously and uninterruptedly, but also need to prove, by cogent and convincing evidence, that there is hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner - Important to assess whether such intention to dispossess is apparent to the actual owner or not - The intention of the adverse user must be communicated atleast impliedly to the actual owner of the property - His hostile attitude should be open to the knowledge of the real owner - It follows that the intention and possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice to the actual owner. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420