Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Adverse possession claim rejected by Supreme Court in property dispute case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


supreme Court of India has upheld a judgment that had decreed a suit for possession filed by Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust against Sh. Diwan Chand and others. The Trust, which is a registered charitable trust, had filed the suit alleging that the defendants had encroached upon the land forming part of Khasra No. 4833. The defendants had contested the suit, alleging that the plaintiffs had no locus to file the suit, the disputed land was not part of Khasra No. 4833, and they had become owners of the land by way of adverse possession.

The trial court had decreed the suit, ordering the defendants to be ejected from the land. However, the judgment was set aside by the lower appellate court, primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the land. The High Court upheld the judgment of the lower appellate court, stating that the identity of the land was in dispute.

The Trust had challenged the High Court's judgment in the Supreme Court, alleging that the lower courts had erred in their findings. The Trust's counsel had argued that the trial court had rightly decreed the suit after appreciating the evidence, but the lower appellate court had reversed the findings. The counsel had further argued that the defendants had themselves admitted during the course of arguments before the trial court that the disputed land was part of Khasra No. 4833. The High Court had also recorded a categorical finding that Khasra No. 4833 belonged to the Trust, which had not been challenged by the defendants.

The Supreme Court observed that the predecessors-in-interest of the Trust had obtained a decree in their favour in 1965 for the disputed land. The Trust had filed an execution petition against the Municipal Committee for the disputed land in 1974, impleading the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants as respondents. A Local Commissioner appointed in the execution proceedings had stated in his report that the shops constructed by the defendants were built on Khasra No. 4833. The defendants were allowed to raise construction on an undertaking that they would not claim any compensation in case they lost.

The predecessors-in-interest of the defendants had filed a suit against the Trust in 1981, claiming ownership of the land by way of adverse possession. The issue of ownership of the Trust was admitted in the suit, and the court had held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their adverse possession. The plaintiffs had been partly successful, and a decree of permanent injunction had been passed in their favour restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession except in due course of law.

The Supreme Court observed that the trial court in the present litigation had recorded the statement made by the defendants' counsel that the disputed land was part of Khasra No. 4833. The court held that the defendants' plea of becoming owners of the land by way of adverse possession had been decided against them in the earlier litigation. The court further observed that an application had been filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants seeking correction of Khasra Girdawari, wherein they had claimed that they were the owners in possession of the shops since 1950, and the same was part of Khasra No. 4833.

The court held that the appellants were the owners of the land forming part of Khasra No. 4833. The court observed that the report of the Local Commissioner submitted in an earlier litigation had stated that the disputed land was located 434 ft. beyond the nala, and the site plan annexed with the report had not shown any Khasra numbers to identify the land properly. The court held that the report was vague and did not inspire confidence. The Supreme Court also observed that the respondents had unnecessarily dragged the appellants into litigation.

Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust against Sh. Diwan Chand and others

Latest Legal News