Neelam Gupta & Ors. vs Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.

12 years – Trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the same – However, the High Court decreed in favour of the respondent no.1-plaintiff – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Once the plaintiff proves his title over suit property it is for the defendant resisting the same claiming adverse possession that he perfected title through adverse possession and in terms of Art. 65 of the 1963 Act the starting point of limitation would not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but would commence only from the date the defendant’s becomes adverse – Evidence on the part of the defendants reveal that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour of title they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period – Requirements to co-exist to constitute adverse possession not established by the defendants – Reckoning of the period of limitation from the date of commencement of the right of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land instead of looking into whether they had succeeded in pleading and establishing the date of commencement of adverse possession and satisfaction regarding the prescriptive period in that regard, rightly interfered with, by the High Court – High Court rightly held that the defendants had only permissive possession over the scheduled land and it was not adverse possession against the respondent – Suit property is not a Joint Hindu Family Property – High Court rightly held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the property on the strength of sale deed – Plea as regards benami transaction also rejected – Furthermore, immovable property can be transferred in favour of a minor or a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property – Thus, the cousin had no legal disability or disqualification at the time of purchase of suit land in 1963 in his name as also the plaintiff, as a transferee, at the time of execution of sale deed – No reason to ascribe voidness to the sale deeds or to hold that they did not have the effect of transfer of ownership – Alleged contempt that pending the instant appeal and after the passing of the order of status quo regarding possession, the defendants created third party rights in the property – Since the impugned judgment is upheld and the declaration that the first respondent is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property, has become final, in terms thereof, contempt petition closed – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Contract Act, 1872. [Paras 25, 29-31, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50]