Shri Uttam Chand (D) through Lrs. vs Nathu Ram (D) through Lrs. & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 January 2020

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2020

Result

Allowed

Bench

L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2020] 5 S.C.R. 1 : 2020 INSC 42

Headnote

Adverse Possession:

Suit for possession – Asserting their title by purchase of property through Managing Officer – Alleging defendants being in unauthorised possession – Trial Court admitted the title but dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and recognising the right of defendants by adverse possession – Appellate Court decreed the suit – In second appeal, High Court on the ground of adverse possession by defendants dismissed the suit – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Plea of adverse possession is always founded on acceptance of ownership of property in another person – In the instant case, defendants never accepted the ownership either of the plaintiff or the Managing Director – Hence, cannot be said to have perfected their right by adverse possession. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another, against whom the claimant asserts possession adverse to the title of the other. The defendants have not admitted the vesting of the suit property with the Managing Officer and the factum of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have denied the title not only of the Managing Officer but also of the plaintiff. The plea of the defendants is one of continuous possession but there is no plea that such possession was hostile to the true owner of the suit property. The evidence of the defendants is that of continuous possession. Some of the receipts pertain to 1963 but possession since November, 1963 till the filing of the suit will not ripe into title as the defendants never admitted the plaintiff-appellant to be owner or that the land ever vested with the Managing Officer. Therefore, the findings recorded by the High Court that the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession are not legally sustainable. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit is decreed. [Paras 15 and 16] [10B-C; 13-B-E]

M Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1440 – followed.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi on 18 th February, 2011 whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4 th J

View Subscription Plans →