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

Share:
airport fundamental Election Supreme v Police 300A Hindu Supreme Court Accident proceedings Medical property bail 196 506 Date of Decision: May 16, 2024 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. Evidence Punjab Courts Act 144 CPC Compliance Court Father Timely Evidence Police Dowry condonatioMurder n Bail Bail Insurance Crime Evidence © All Rights Reserved @ LAWYER E NEWS *Disclaimer: Always compare with the original copy of judgment from the official website. punishment Technical criminal Homebuyers SARFAESI Judgment Telangana Bail Order murderWorkman Evidence National Property LPG Employee Report suit Suicide Notice Rape Electoral Bond Breach Article 142 bail duty custody skills legal 2025 Summoning recovery Constitutional Bail property nclt army validity police governance evidence teachers bail property jurisdiction evidence Possession amendment life land evidence causes degree absence

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.

   

Download Judgment

       

Share: