Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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