Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court 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 Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

'Possession was Permissive, Not Adverse: Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Right to Possession, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India reinstated the rightful ownership and possession of property to the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012. The apex court overturned the High Court's decision, which had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, favoring the respondents' claim of adverse possession.

The case involved a dispute over Plot No. 1019 in Village Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Brij Narayan Shukla (deceased), represented by his legal heirs, had claimed ownership of the land based on a sale deed dated January 21, 1966, from the erstwhile Zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. The conflict arose when the appellant attempted construction in 1975, facing opposition from the respondents.

Justice Vikram Nath, presiding over the bench, clarified the legal position, stating, "The dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant respondents would arise only after the said date [of the sale deed] and not on any date prior to it." This observation was critical in determining the commencement of the limitation period for the suit.

The respondents had contested the claim, asserting ownership through adverse possession since 1944. However, the Supreme Court found this claim untenable. "Their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse," Justice Nath observed.

The Trial Court and the District Judge had earlier recognized the appellant's ownership and possession. The Supreme Court's decision aligns with these findings, emphasizing the non-agricultural nature of the disputed land and dismissing the respondents' claim of becoming owners following the abolition of Zamindari.

The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of property rights and the limitations of adverse possession claims. It underscores the court's commitment to upholding lawful ownership and the principles of justice in property disputes.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D)  THR. LRS. VS SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS  SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News