Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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