Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Therefore, the plaintiff having stated himself to be sub-tenant before the revenue authorities, he could not have raised the plea of adverse possession..." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 18, 2026, held that a litigant who has consistently claimed the status of a sub-tenant before revenue authorities cannot subsequently turn around and set up a plea of adverse possession or title in a civil suit.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed that a party acknowledging permissive possession or tenancy cannot simultaneously assert hostile, adverse possession against the true titleholders, noting that "before the revenue authority prior to filing of the suit the original plaintiff had been coming up with a case that he is a sub-tenant but suddenly in the Civil Court he became wiser and he started saying that he received the property by way of oral gift."

Bringing curtains down on a 58-year-old title and possession dispute originating in 1968, the High Court affirmed the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court decree in a second appeal. The original plaintiff claimed title over agricultural land on the strength of an alleged 1948 oral gift from the predecessor of the defendants or, alternatively, by adverse possession, but had suffered a dismissal before the First Appellate Court.

The primary questions before the court were whether a party acknowledging sub-tenancy before revenue authorities can maintain a plea of adverse possession, whether an oral gift made in 1948 in the erstwhile princely State of Rewa required compulsory registration under the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917, and whether a suit founded on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act rather than Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Party Acknowledging Tenancy Cannot Claim Adverse Possession

The High Court meticulously scrutinized the revenue records and prior litigations between the parties, noting that the plaintiff had himself relied upon an order dated March 30, 1967, passed by the Board of Revenue wherein he was recorded as a sub-tenant in continuous possession. The bench highlighted that under revenue proceedings, the plaintiff’s own application dated April 4, 1963, categorically asserted his status as a sub-tenant over the disputed agricultural land rather than an independent owner holding hostile title.

Justice Jain observed that such deliberate acknowledgment before competent revenue authorities completely destroyed the foundation of adverse possession, which strictly requires hostile, uninterrupted, and open possession with animus possidendi against the true owner. Once permissive possession or derivative tenancy is admitted, the occupant cannot legally assert that their possession was adverse to the landlord.

"Therefore, the plaintiff having stated himself to be sub-tenant before the revenue authorities, he could not have raised the plea of adverse possession and, therefore, substantial question of law No. 2 is answered against the appellant."

Shifting Stance From Sub-Tenant To Donee Disbelieved

The bench deprecated the opportunistic shift in pleadings adopted by the plaintiff upon approaching the civil court, pointing out the stark contradiction between revenue records and the plaint. The court remarked that while the plaintiff repeatedly defended his possession before the Tahsil Court, Additional Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue as a sub-tenant, he completely changed his narrative in the civil suit by setting up an unproven oral gift from 1948.

The court noted that when confronted with his prior applications admitting sub-tenancy, the plaintiff's witness feigned poor vision to evade admitting the signatures, which further undermined the credibility of the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession.

1948 Gift In Princely State Of Rewa Required Compulsory Registration

Addressing the appellant's contention that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Registration Act, 1908, were extended to Part-C States like Vindhya Pradesh only with effect from April 16, 1950, via the Part-C States (Laws) Act, 1950, the High Court held that the transaction remained governed by the local laws of the erstwhile princely State of Rewa. Under Sections 1 and 21 of the Rewa State Registration Act, 1917, any instrument relating to immovable property yielding annual profits exceeding Rs. 25 was compulsorily registrable, and unregistered conveyances were rendered void.

The bench emphasized that since the plaint itself admitted an annual land revenue liability of Rs. 80, the profits clearly exceeded the statutory threshold of Rs. 25 per annum, making registration indispensable.

"Therefore, the contention of counsel for the appellant that in the year 1948 there was no requirement of any written instrument of transfer of property, is misconceived. This argument deserves to be and is hereby discarded."

Suit Founded On Title Governed By Article 65 Limitation Act

On the question of limitation, the High Court clarified that the First Appellate Court had erred in applying the 6-month limitation bar under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The bench held that since the suit was specifically founded on title and recovery of possession following dispossession in 1964, it fell squarely under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period, making the 1968 suit timely.

However, the court ruled that this legal finding could not alter the final outcome because the plaintiff miserably failed to establish title by way of a valid gift or adverse possession, and revenue entries merely reflected possession rather than ownership.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the second appeal and upheld the First Appellate Court's decree dismissing the suit, directing the appellant to bear the costs of the respondents. The ruling underscores the established legal principle that admissions of tenancy before statutory revenue forums effectively foreclose any subsequent civil claims of ownership founded upon adverse possession.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2026