CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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