Mere Assertion Without Title Cannot Sustain Ownership Claim: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Encroachment Claim Fails Without Legal Ownership and Timely Action - Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered on 13th February 2025, dismissed a second appeal filed by Khubi Ram challenging concurrent findings of fact in a property dispute, ruling that a mere assertion of ownership without documentary proof cannot sustain a claim for possession, especially when the claim is time-barred.
Justice Nidhi Gupta, rejecting Regular Second Appeal No. 910 of 2022 (O&M), ruled that "a plaintiff must establish a legal title over the disputed property to seek possession. Mere allegations of encroachment, unsupported by documentary evidence, do not create a legal right. Additionally, a claim made decades after the alleged encroachment is barred by limitation."
The case involved a dispute over a passage in a residential area in Village Bhakli, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari. The appellant, Khubi Ram, claimed that the defendant had illegally encroached upon a passage adjacent to his property, which was allegedly left as a common access route when the land was partitioned in 1979. The defendant, however, established that his house had been constructed on the disputed land as early as 1984, and the revenue records showed it as "Gair Mumkin Makan."
The trial court dismissed the suit on 6th April 2017, holding that:The appellant had no legal title over the disputed passage.
•    The claim was time-barred, as the defendant’s construction had existed since 1984, while the suit was filed only in 2013.
•    The local commission’s report and cross-examination contradicted the appellant’s claims.
The first appellate court upheld this decision on 13th February 2020, emphasizing that the appellant’s failure to object to the defendant’s construction for decades weakened his case.
The High Court found no reason to interfere, ruling that "a plaintiff who does not hold title to a property has no cause of action to claim possession or challenge a mutation." The court noted that the appellant himself admitted in cross-examination that he had no ownership over the disputed passage.
The judgment further stressed that "limitation laws exist to prevent stale claims from being reopened. When a construction has existed for nearly 30 years without objection, the courts cannot entertain belated claims under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963."
Reaffirming that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be entertained if a substantial question of law arises, the court ruled that "mere dissatisfaction with concurrent factual findings is not a valid ground for appeal. When both lower courts have applied settled legal principles correctly, a second appeal cannot be entertained."
Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that "the appellant’s claim was neither supported by legal ownership nor filed within the limitation period. No substantial question of law arises, and the appeal stands dismissed."
 

Date of Decision: 13 February 2025