Skip to main content

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.








Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more