Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Plaintiff’s Ownership and High Court’s Decision; Rejects Adverse Possession Claim and Orders Defendants to Vacate Property

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which reversed the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court confirmed that the plaintiff had valid ownership of the disputed property and rejected the appellants’ claim of adverse possession. The appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming that the appellants were bound to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff.

Facts:

The case revolves around a property dispute involving land measuring 7.60 acres in Raipur, which was purchased by the plaintiff through a registered sale deed in 1968. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of possession of the property, alleging that the defendants, who are his cousins, wrongfully dispossessed him in 1983. The defendants contended that the property was part of a Joint Hindu Family and that they had acquired it through adverse possession.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership of the suit land based on the sale deed.
2. Whether the defendants’ claim of adverse possession over the property was valid.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The plaintiff argued that he had lawfully purchased the property in 1968 and was its rightful owner. He also contended that the defendants’ possession was permissive and not adverse. The plaintiff relied on documentary evidence, including the sale deed and revenue records, to substantiate his claim.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The defendants argued that the property was purchased in the name of a family member but was held as joint family property. They also contended that they had been in possession of the property since 1968 and had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis of the Law:

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the doctrine of adverse possession. It reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be continuous, open, and hostile to the true owner’s rights for a prescriptive period. The Court found that the defendants’ possession was not adverse but permissive, as they had earlier applied for occupancy rights, admitting the plaintiff’s ownership.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on its decisions in Indira v. Arumugam and Saroop Singh v. Banto, where it held that once a plaintiff establishes title to the property, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession. The Court also cited M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, which emphasize that adverse possession requires clear animus possidendi under hostile color of title.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the defendants’ possession was not adverse, as they had sought to record their names in the revenue records as lessees, acknowledging the plaintiff’s ownership. The Court found that the defendants had failed to prove the hostile nature of their possession or the requisite period for adverse possession to apply.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the property. It rejected the defendants’ claim of adverse possession and affirmed the High Court’s order directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the legal principles surrounding adverse possession and the importance of proving continuous and hostile possession against the true owner. It also highlights the court’s role in correcting perverse findings by lower courts when based on improper appreciation of evidence.

Also Read – Supreme Court Affirms Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Upholds Specific Performance, Rejects Bona Fide Purchaser Claim for Sale Executed During Pending Litigation