Long Continuous Possession By Itself Cannot Be Termed As Adverse Possession

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2020, SHRI UTTAM CHAND vs NATHU RAM, appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Supreme Court against judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was dismissed.

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on the January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17th February, 1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.

The defendants in the written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants asserted that their house existed on the property in question for more than the last two centuries. The grandfather of the defendants was said to be in possession of the property as owner, thereafter their father one Tara Chand and now all the defendants are in possession of the property as owners. It was denied that the property was ever vested with the Managing Officer and, therefore, it was claimed that the Managing Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to auction the property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has no interest, right or title in the property.

The trial court while admitting the ownership of the plaintiff, found the defendant to be in adverse possession and the suit filed by the plaintiff to be time barred and dismissed the suit. The decision of the trial court was reversed by the High Court in first appeal wherein it was held that the defendant were not in adverse possession but in second appeal the High Court found the defendant to be in adverse possession and suit barred by limitation.

The Supreme Court looking into the issue of adverse possession and referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court held that in the present case, the defendants have not admitted the vesting of the suit property with the Managing Officer and the factum of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have denied the title not only of the Managing Officer but also of the plaintiff. The plea of the defendants is one of continuous possession but there is no plea that such possession was hostile to the true owner of the suit property. The evidence of the defendants is that of continuous possession. The Supreme Court decided that in view of the judgments referred to above, we find that the findings

recorded by the High Court that the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court was set aside and the suit was decreed.