2007 Supreme(SC) 1338

2007(7) Supreme 342
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Annakili — Petitioner
versus
A. Vedanayagam & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4880 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6500 of 2006)
Decided on : 12-10-2007

important point
For adverse possession possessor must show existence of animus possidendi. He must also show that animus possidendi existed at the commencement of the possession.

Headnote:(a)Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 7 – The Corporation of Madras, the original title holder transferring the property in favour of Mr. Krishnadoss Lala thus divesting itself of the said property – Appellant claiming title only on the basis of purported settlement made in their favour by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board – The Corporation of Madras or the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, not having any title in the suit property could not have transferred any right, title and interest in the said land to the appellants and others similarly situated. (Paras 17 and 18)

       (b)Adverse Possession – Even in the said writ petition, the appellant did not claim any independent right on the basis of adverse possession or otherwise – Writ allowed with direction to denotify the area as Slum area accepting the title of respondents, and confirmed, attaining finality – It was not necessary for the respondents therefore to file a suit for a declaration of their title. (Para 21)

       (c)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 10 – In the appeal preferred by Appellant decision of the Division Bench was rendered in presence of the appellant – Therefore the appellate judgment operates as res judicata so far the appellant is concerned. (Para 21)

       (d)Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Title of the respondents in the suit property having already been adjudicated upon, a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of the said title attracted Article 65 – Therefore, it was for the appellant to show that she and her predecessor had been in possession of the suit property on the basis of the hostile title and as a result whereof the title of the plaintiff-respondent extinguished. (Para 22)

       (e)Adverse Possession – Well settled that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose – Possessor must show existence of animus possidendi – Animus possidendi must also be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession – He must continue in said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act – Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more do not ripen into a title. (Para 23)

       (2005) 8 SCC 330; Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak; 2006 (8) SCALE 624 : (2006) 7 SCC 570; (2007) 6 SCC 59; (2007) 3 SCC 114 – Relied upon.

       (f)Title – Appellant not raising any claim on adverse possession prior to the filing of the writ appeal. She and her husband has been claiming title only through or under the Board and no independent title was claimed – Respondents, on the one hand and the Corporation of Madras, Slum Board and the Government of Tamil Nadu on the other were litigating since 1973 – Even then the Board and the Government accepted the title of the respondents – Respondents also reimbursed the Board in regard to the expenditure incurred by them – No infirmity in High Court judgment rejecting appellant’s claim of adverse possession. (Para 28)

       Facts of the case:

       Plaintiffs-Respondents are owners of the property in question. They purchased the same from Corporation of Madras by a registered deed of sale dated 19.4.1944. The owners of the property, namely Krishnadoss Lala and his brother, however, partitioned their suit properties on or about 5.5.1968 whereupon the suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnadoss Lala. After his demise, the same vested in his heirs and legal representatives. They, along with one Mohamed Idris and one K. Peer Mohideen entered into an agreement whereby and whereunder, it was agreed that the property should be released from the notification of the year 1973 issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.

       Plaintiffs-Respondent herein purchased the suit properties not only from the heirs and legal representatives of the said Krishnadoss Lala but also from the said Mohamed Idris and K. Peer Mohideen for valuable consideration by a registered deed of sale dated 30.9.1986.

       Defendants claimed possession of the suit properties described in Schedule A of the plaint therein since 1957. On or about 1.12.1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu designated an area including the suit properties as slum area. It was transferred to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.

       Pursuant to a scheme undertaken by the World Bank in regard to sale of land situated in Corporation Division No.122, Kamraja Puram, T. Nagar slum areas to the persons who were in occupation of the portions thereof, the Department of House and Urban Development, Government of Tamil Nadu issued two GOMs bearing No.1117 dated 27.6.1979 and GOMs No.1100 dated 29.8.1980 in that behalf

       The suit property was allotted to the husband of the appellant.

       Plaintiffs-respondents, however, moved the High Court by way of filing a writ petition in the year 1989 for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to denotify the land in question as a slum area and put them back in the possession thereof. By a judgment and order dated 10.1.1990, the said writ petition was allowed. The area in question was directed to be denotified and the respondents herein were found entitled to obtain vacant possession of the said property.

       Plaintiffs-respondents, however, moved the High Court by way of filing a writ petition in the year 1989 for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to denotify the land in question as a slum area and put them back in the possession thereof. By a judgment and order dated 10.1.1990, the said writ petition was allowed. The area in question was directed to be denotified and the respondents herein were found entitled to obtain vacant possession of the said property.

       Appellant and other persons similarly situated were not parties therein. They preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was numbered as writ appeal No.272 of 1990. The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 21.3.1990 found the title of the respondent herein having regard to the admitted facts in the said proceedings, but upon holding that as the appellants have ventured to put forth a case that their occupation of the property relate back to 60 years which conferred the right to them de hors the said proceedings and as direction to hand over the vacant possession would result in dispossession of the third parties to which the learned Single Judge had no occasion to advert to and adjudicate upon the rights of the third parties, because they were not parties in the said writ petition,

       Consequent upon the said decision of the Division Judge, the Government of Tamil Nadu cancelled the earlier notification dated 1.12.1972 notifying the suit properties as slum area.

       Respondents filed a suit on 26.9.1995.

       The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said suit opining that the suit land had been in occupation of the appellants for a long time and that they have acquired title by adverse possession. The suit was also held to be barred by limitation. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.

       Findings of the Court:

       The Corporation of Madras or the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, not having any title in the suit property could not have transferred any right, title and interest in the said land to the appellants and others similarly situated.

       When the respondent’s prayer for denotifying the area as Slum area was allowed accepting her title, she did not need to file a suit for declaration of title.

       It was for the appellant to show that she and her predecessor had been in possession of the suit property on the basis of the hostile title and as a result whereof the title of the plaintiff-respondent extinguished.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.