High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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