1. Suit under Sections 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration, injunction, and possession of land. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : V.N.Khare
Bhura Mogiya
Versus
Satish Pagariya
Case No. : 2456 of 1997
Date of Decision : 3/30/00
Important Points
Permissive possession, such as that acquired through a sale agreement, cannot be converted into adverse possession unless the possessor asserts a title adverse to the true owner's knowledge for over 12 years. Section 209 of the Tenancy Act allows courts to grant entitlements not explicitly asked for.
Subject
Civil Law - Land and Tenancy Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Tenancy Act - Section 209 - Power of court to grant relief - In any suit or proceeding, the court may, on the application of the plaintiff and after framing the necessary issues, grant any relief which the court is competent to grant and to which it may find the plaintiff entitled, notwithstanding that such relief may not have been asked for in the plaint. (Para 4)
(B) Adverse Possession - Permissive possession - Possession acquired by virtue of an agreement is permissible possession. Permissible possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted and acquired adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owner for a period of 12 years and above. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the recorded tenants and for an injunction, or alternatively, for possession of the land. It was undisputed that the defendants entered into a sale agreement for the land and were delivered possession. Due to a dispute over the balance payment, the plaintiffs claimed possession was returned via a settlement, though subsequent proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure found the defendants to be in possession. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial court but was later decreed by the Board of Revenue on second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 209 of the Act was appropriate as the plaintiffs were found entitled to be recorded as sah-khatedars. Additionally, the claim of adverse possession was rejected because the possession was initially permissible under a contract and there was no evidence of an assertive claim of title against the owner for the statutory period.
Issues: (i) Whether the court could grant a decree for ejectment without framing a specific issue under Section 209 of the Act; (ii) Whether possession based on a sale agreement could be converted into title by adverse possession after 12 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 209 empowers the court to grant any relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled. Furthermore, permissive possession does not mature into adverse possession unless the possessor openly asserts a title adverse to the true owner for a period of 12 years or more.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Adverse Possession - Permissive possession - Possession acquired by virtue of an agreement is permissible possession. Permissible possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted and acquired adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owner for a period of 12 years and above. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the recorded tenants and for an injunction, or alternatively, for possession of the land. It was undisputed that the defendants entered into a sale agreement for the land and were delivered possession. Due to a dispute over the balance payment, the plaintiffs claimed possession was returned via a settlement, though subsequent proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure found the defendants to be in possession. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial court but was later decreed by the Board of Revenue on second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 209 of the Act was appropriate as the plaintiffs were found entitled to be recorded as sah-khatedars. Additionally, the claim of adverse possession was rejected because the possession was initially permissible under a contract and there was no evidence of an assertive claim of title against the owner for the statutory period.
Issues: (i) Whether the court could grant a decree for ejectment without framing a specific issue under Section 209 of the Act; (ii) Whether possession based on a sale agreement could be converted into title by adverse possession after 12 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 209 empowers the court to grant any relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled. Furthermore, permissive possession does not mature into adverse possession unless the possessor openly asserts a title adverse to the true owner for a period of 12 years or more.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Defendants argued no issue framed under Section 209 and claimed adverse possession over permissible possession. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Court can grant relief under Section 209 when issue of title is before it; permissible possession cannot become adverse. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless title is asserted and proved to owner's knowledge for 12 years. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 6 )
6. Can a court grant ejectment relief under Section 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act without a specific issue being framed?
Yes, if the issue of title is before the court and the plaintiff is found entitled, the court may grant such relief under Section 209. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Can a person in permissive possession acquire title by adverse possession?
No, unless the person asserts an adverse title to the knowledge of the true owner for a continuous period of 12 years or more. (Para 5 )
(1) THE appellants herein were the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajasamand District, Udaipur. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiff-respondents are the recorded tenant and for injunction and alternatively, for possession of the land, if the plaintiffs were not found in possession. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the father of the defendant-appellants for sale of land measuring 90 bighas. It is also not disputed that the plaintiffs received the earnest money and they delivered possession of the land to the father of the defendants. What is disputed is that since the defendants did not pay the balance amount a dispute arose and as a result of a settlement Ex. 4 came to be arrived at. The case of the plaintiffs was that as a result of Ex. 4 the defendants gave back the possession of the land to them. It further appears that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were initiated and the Magistrate found that the defendants were in possession over the land. Consequently the possession of the land was delivered to the defendants.
(2) UNDER these circumstances, a suit came to be filed by the plaintiff- respondents. The defendant-appellants pleaded in their written statement that they came in possession over the land by virtue of an agreement and alternatively it was also pleaded that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court found that Ex. 4 was a fictitious document and in fact it is the defendants who were in possession and therefore the suit was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed. The Board of Revenue, on second appeal being filed by the plaintiffs allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan. It is against the aforesaid judgment the appellants are in appeal before us.
(3) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the Board of Revenue could not have passed an order for ejectment of the defendant-appellants without having framed an issue in that regard as contemplated under Section 209 of the Act. Section 209 of the Act runs as under:
"209. In any suit or proceeding, the court may, on the application of the plaintiff and after framing the necessary issues, grant any relief which the court is competent to grant and to which it may find the plaintiff entitled, notwithstanding that such relief may not have been asked for in the plaint or application: Provided that, after framing such issues, the court shall, on the request of either party, grant reasonable time for the production of evidence."
(4) IT is true that Section 209 provides that in any suit on the application of the plaintiff the court after framing necessary issues may grant any relief which the court may deem fit and find the plaintiffs are entitled. The issue before the Revenue Court was about the title of the parties. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have sought relief for ejectment of the defendants from the land in case they are not found in possession. The Board of Revenue found that the plaintiffs are entitled to be recorded as sah-khatedars. The plea of the plaintiffs being in possession having not been found correct the Court has invoked its jurisdiction under Section 209 of the Act. We, therefore, reject the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
(5) LEARNED counsel then urged that in any case the defendants having remained in possession for a considerable period of time, more than 12 years, thereby acquired title by adverse possession. Admittedly, the defendants came into possession on the basis of agreement, which was a permissible possession. Once the defendants possession was by virtue of an agreement it is not open to them to take a plea that they acquired title by adverse possession. Permissible possession cannot be
