IMPORTANT POINT
Mere mutation does not confer title.
Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.
Rejection of SLP does not bind a person who was not a party to it. Non-disclosure of the same would be immaterial.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – First appellate court returning funding that plaintiff are owners of the suit land – Finding based on appreciation of evidence – Sale deed – High Court erred in reversing the finding of fact by first appellate court showing non-application of mind and incorrect appreciation of evidence on record. (Para 17)
       (b) Adverse possession – Respondent taking claiming adverse possession pleading that sale deed of plaintiff is a sham transaction – Not tenable – Further, the plea makes the appellants absolute owners of the property in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – In case of permissive possession burden lies heavily on the person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse – Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. (Para 18, 22)
       (1994) 6 SCC 591; (2007) 6 SCC 59; (1993) 4 SCC 349; (1993) 4 SCC 403 – Relied upon
       (c) Administration of justice – Rejection of SLP – Effect – Does not bind a person who was not a party to the SLP in question – Non-disclosure of the same immaterial. (Para 20)
       AIR 1963 SC 1558; (2010) 2 SCC 114 – Referred
       (d) Property law – Title – Sale deed – Appellant not getting mutation done in the records in his name – Does not disentitle him of title – Respondent having mutation in his name as lessee cannot confer him title over the property. (Para 21)
       (1996) 6 SCC 223 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant No. 1 herein along with his mother Kaushalya Rani, vide sale deed dated 17.10.1996, purchased land measuring 41 Kanals 4= Marlas being 5/25th share of land measuring 206 Kanals 3 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala according to jamabandi for the year 1960-1961. Prior to the execution of the said sale deed, the land in question had been leased to the respondent No.1 herein, Narinder Nath Kapoor (since deceased) for 20 years from 1966 to 1986. In addition to the above mentioned land, the mother of the appellant No.1 had also purchased land measuring 79 Kanals 12 Marlas, which amounted to ¾th share of land measuring 106 Kanals 3 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala, Tehsil Thanesar, District, Kurukshetra (according to jamabandi for the year 1960-61) vide sale deed dated 07.01.1967 which was also leased by its previous owners to respondent No.1 for the period of 20 years i.e. 1967 to 1987 vide lease deed dated 06.01.1967.
       After the death of the mother of appellant No.1, respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 655 of 1987 before learned Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra against the previous owners of the suit property i.e. Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit ex-parte in favour of the respondent No.1 vide judgment and order dated 10.02.1988.
       The appellants filed Suit for declaration of title and joint possession over the said suit property as well as declaration to the effect that the judgment and order passed in the Civil Suit No. 655 of 1987 is not binding upon the appellants as the defendants therein Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan were no more the owners of the suit land as the same had been purchased by them vide registered sale deeds dated 17.10.1966 and 07.01.1967.
       The said Civil Suit was dismissed.
       The appellants filed Civil Appeal which was allowed.
       Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed Regular Second Appeal before the High Court which has been allowed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not conformity with the law.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

Mere mutation of property records does not establish or transfer ownership rights (!) .
Long-term possession alone does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession; proof of adverse intent is required [Para 18, 22].
Rejection of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not bind persons who were not parties to that SLP, and non-disclosure of the rejection is immaterial (!) .
Title to immovable property is not lost or gained solely through possession or mutation entries; legal ownership is primarily established through valid sale deeds and registration [Para 21].
A person claiming adverse possession must prove that possession has become adverse and not merely permissive; mere possession for a long period is insufficient [Para 18, 22].
The appellate courts' findings of fact should be carefully appreciated, and reversal of such findings requires substantial legal or factual errors (!) (!) .
The existence of a lease or rental arrangement does not automatically confer ownership rights or adverse possession status on the lessee [Para 21].
The intention behind executing a sale deed, as evidenced by its contents and surrounding circumstances, determines whether title has effectively passed (!) .
Concealment of material facts, especially regarding earlier legal proceedings or orders, can influence the court's perception of the case, but non-disclosure by non-parties does not necessarily affect the binding nature of those proceedings (!) (!) .
The legal presumption that mutation records are conclusive evidence of ownership is incorrect; ownership rights are established through proper registration and sale deeds (!) .

Please let me know if you'd like a summary focusing on specific aspects or further legal interpretation.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1661 of 2005, whereby the said appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra decreeing the suit in favour of the appellants herein was set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated hereunder:

4. The appellant No. 1 herein along with his mother Kaushalya Rani, vide sale deed dated 17.10.1996, purchased land measuring 41 Kanals 4= Marlas being 5/25th share of land measuring 206 Kanals 3 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala according to jamabandi for the year 1960-1961. Prior to the execution of the said sale deed, the land in question had been leased to the respondent No.1 herein, Narinder Nath Kapoor (since deceased) for 20 years from 1966 to 1986. In addition to the above mentioned land, the mother of the appellant No.1 had also purchased land measuring 79 Kanals 12 Marlas, which amounted to ¾th share of land measuring 106 Kanals 3 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala, Tehsil Thanesar, District, Kurukshetra (according to jamabandi for the year 1960-61) vide sale deed dated 07.01.1967 which was also leased by its previous owners to respondent No.1 for the period of 20 years i.e. 1967 to 1987 vide lease deed dated 06.01.1967.

5. After the death of the mother of appellant No.1, respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 655 of 1987 before learned Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra against the previous owners of the suit property i.e. Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit ex-parte in favour of the respondent No.1 vide judgment and order dated 10.02.1988.

6. Aggrieved of the aforementioned ex-parte decree, the appellants filed Suit No. 133/2002 of 1990 for declaration of title and joint possession over the said suit property as well as declaration to the effect that the judgment and order passed in the Civil Suit No. 655 of 1987 is not binding upon the appellants as the defendants therein Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan were no more the owners of the suit land as the same had been purchased by them vide registered sale deeds dated 17.10.1966 and 07.01.1967.

7. The Civil Suit No. 133/2002 of 1990 was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra vide order dated 20.08.2002. The learned Civil Judge held that there was no valid and cogent reason to declare the judgment and order dated 10.02.1988 as illegal, null and void and that the plaintiff-appellants were not entitled for the relief of joint possession whatsoever. It was further held that respondent No. 1 had perfected his title over the suit land by prescription and adverse possession.

8. Aggrieved of the aforementioned judgment and order, the appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2002/2004 before the Additional District Judge challenging the correctness of the same. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 and held that respondent No.1 cannot be held to have acquired legal right to claim ownership over the suit property by pleading adverse possession, as mere mutation entry in his name in the record does not create or confer title in the immoveable property.

9. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1661 of 2005 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against the said order. Vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2009, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the first appellate court. The High Court held as under:

"In this case also, neither the possession was delivered to the plain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 439

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.Prem Nath Khanna and others – AppellantsVersusNarinder Nath Kapoor (Dead) Through L.Rs and others – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 2151 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2489 of 2011)Decided on : 01-3-2016

IMPORTANT POINTMere mutation does not confer title. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. Rejection of SLP does not bind a person who was not a party to it. Non-disclosure of the same would be immaterial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Prem Nath Khanna and others – Appellants
Versus
Narinder Nath Kapoor (Dead) Through L.Rs and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2489 of 2011)
Decided on : 01-3-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere mutation does not confer title.
Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession.
Rejection of SLP does not bind a person who was not a party to it. Non-disclosure of the same would be immaterial.