UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

'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