Suit – Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction – On the basis of registered sale deed and also on basis of adverse possession – Trial Court dismissed the suit – The First Appellate held that the plaintiffs-respondent did not get any right on basis of the sale deed – However, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit for title on basis of adverse possession and restrained the defendant-appellant from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs-respondent – Second appeal before High Court which framed substantial question of law on adverse possession and decided the same in favour of appellant, however, thereafter did not interfere with the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court – Held: All the Courts below negated the claim of original plaintiffs of ownership on basis of registered Sale Deed – Therefore, the only claim on behalf of plaintiffs was the plea of adverse possession – So far as plea of adverse possession was concerned, the High Court had specifically framed a substantial question of law and as such held the same in favour of appellant-defendant – High Court specifically observed and held that the plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both, were contrary to each other and the plaintiffs could not be permitted to take both the pleas at the same time – Therefore, even as per the High Court, the claim of plaintiffs on basis of the adverse possession was not tenable – In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of appellant- defendant and the title/ownership claimed on basis of Sale Deed was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs – Under the circumstances, the High Court materially erred in confirming the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court has specifically observed and held that the plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both, are contrary to each other and the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take both the pleas at the same time. Therefore, even as per the High Court, the claim of the plaintiffs on the basis of the adverse possession was not tenable. In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant – original defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court. [Para 5][567-H; 568-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.