Specific Relief Cannot Be Denied When Possession Is Proven Through Title and Conduct — Mere Waste on Land Doesn’t Establish Adverse Claim: Supreme Court

“Dumping Manure Is Not Possession — In a significant reaffirmation of property ownership jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India, on 9th September 2025, upheld a High Court decision restoring ownership rights to a plaintiff over an open plot of land adjacent to his residential property. The Court held that the presence of manure or waste on a property does not amount to legal possession, especially where title is proved and possession is peacefully enjoyed until disturbed.

The bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and ruled:

“The Commissioner’s report only spoke of the manure kept and waste dumped in the property; which according to us cannot be a valid ground to find possession.”

“Oral Partition Allegation Unsupported by Pleadings, Evidence, or Relationship — Mere Assertions Cannot Defeat Registered Title”

The case revolved around a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking declaration of ownership and possession along with a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with an open plot of land adjacent to his house, described in the plaint as portions marked ‘ABCD’ (building area) and ‘PCDF’ (open plot). The plaintiff had purchased the entire 150 sq. meters through a registered sale deed (Ext. 81), though earlier records reflected only 109.70 sq. meters due to administrative error — which was later corrected.

The trial court and the first appellate court had dismissed the suit, accepting the defendant’s plea that they were using the open land based on an oral partition in 1974. However, the High Court reversed those findings, and the Supreme Court has now upheld the High Court’s judgment.

The 8th to 12th defendants (appellants in the appeal) had argued that a portion of the disputed land was being used for manure and waste disposal, and claimed this as a mark of possession. However, only the 9th defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. Others remained ex parte or filed no pleadings.

Interestingly, the 9th defendant claimed the land was his ancestral property, alleging an oral partition in 1974 — but offered no proof of relationship with the plaintiff’s vendor or of any such partition. The High Court held, and the Supreme Court confirmed:

“Without any evidence regarding the oral partition and without establishing the connection with such partition or relationship with the vendor... the 9th defendant could not have raised a valid claim of possession-in-common of the property.”

Supreme Court's Observations on Title, Possession & Revenue Records

The Court found that the plaintiff had not only produced a registered sale deed for 150 sq. meters, but also a corrected revenue record, which supported the full extent of the land. Criticizing the lower courts, the Court observed:

“Merely because the correction was done in the course of the suit is no reason to disbelieve the public record... the trial court ought not to have suspected the sanctity of the correction unless it was disproved.”

Further rejecting the idea that dumping manure constitutes evidence of ownership, the Court stated: “The Commissioner’s report... cannot be a valid ground to find possession, especially when the case of the plaintiff was that waste is being thrown... despite specific objection.”

“Declaratory Relief Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act Cannot Be Denied Without Defendant Proving Possession”

One of the appellate court’s key errors was holding that the suit should fail under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, since the plaintiff allegedly didn’t seek possession. The Supreme Court dismantled this reasoning:

“The first appellate court’s finding on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be sustained since the 9th defendant did not establish possession.”

The Court also accepted testimony from PW2 — a neutral witness — who confirmed that the plaintiff’s vendor used to tie cattle on the land, and the defendants only dumped waste when the plaintiff was not residing there.

“Uncontested Defendants Cannot Ride on Disputes Raised by Others”

Critically, the 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th defendants did not file any written statements or challenge the claims independently. Yet, they joined in appeal based on the 9th defendant’s contentions. The Court outrightly rejected this strategy:

“They cannot file an appeal and prosecute it based on the contentions of the 9th defendant, though an identity of interest is claimed.”

Reiterating the strength of registered title, confirmed revenue entries, and peaceful possession, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decree of ownership, possession, and injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

In closing, the Court reaffirmed: “The plaintiff’s vendor’s possession is established and the plea of common use set up by the 9th defendant is demolished.”

The appeal was dismissed with no merit, restoring the plaintiff’s rights over the full extent of land purchased.

Date of Decision: 09th September 2025