2023 Supreme(SC) 84

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Baini Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. – Appellants
Versus
Durga Devi – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6182-6183 of 2009
Decided On : 02-02-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In order to attract Section 51 of T.P. Act, 1882, occupant of land must have held possession under colour of title.
(2) Estoppel – A legal status expressly denied by a statute could not be conferred on the basis of estoppel.
(3) Recovery of possession of land – In absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, mere fact that after making objection plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach Court for recovery of possession cannot be a reason to deny him relief him of recovery of possession of encroached land on his establishing his title over it.

Headnote:

(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 51 – Improvements made by bonafide holders under defective titles – Section 51, TP Act is a general provision dealing with improvements effected by a transferee to transferred property in the manner specifically provided thereunder – Section 51 applies in terms to a transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property believing himself to be its absolute owner – Even after pre-requisites for enforceability of equity enacted in it are satisfied, right to election for one of two alternatives provided under that Section would still rest with person evicting – He may elect either to pay value of improvements made by defendant who satisfies a description of “transferee” for the purpose of this Section and take the land or sell out his interests in the land to transferee at market value of property, irrespective of value of such improvements. (Paras 8 and 9)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 51 – Improvements made by bonafide holders under defective titles – In order to attract Section 51 occupant of land must have held possession under colour of title, his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to title of true owner and he must be under bonafide belief that he has secured good title to property in question and is owner thereof – Section 51 gives only statutory recognition to these three things – Original appellant has failed to establish that he is a “transferee” within meaning of TP Act and for the purpose of Section 51, TP Act – Concurrent findings of courts below is that respondent herein is owner of land in question and original appellants had encroached upon it and effected construction – Even construction was effected in deviation of approved plan – Appellants are not entitled to rely on provision under Section 51, TP Act to seek for restoration of modification made by First Appellate Court with respect to demolition and possession. (Paras 10 and 11)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – To invoke concept of estoppel defendant has to specifically plead each and every act or omission, as the case may be, that constitutes representation from plaintiff – When rights are invoked estoppel may with equal justification be described both as a rule of evidence and as a rule creating or defeating rights – A legal status expressly denied by a statute could not be conferred on the basis of estoppel. (Paras 12 and 12.3)

(D) Equity – Invocation of – Equity will follow law and it would tilt in favour of law – To claim equity party must explain previous conduct. (Para 14)

(E) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Recovery of possession of land – In a case where owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by opposite party ignoring objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will – In absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, mere fact that after making objection plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach Court for recovery of possession cannot be a reason to deny him relief him of recovery of possession of encroached land on his establishing his title over it – No flaw, legal error, perversity or patent illegality in findings on substantial questions of law by High Court. (Paras 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Scope of consideration in these appeals is to be confined to the question whether the reversal by High Court of modification effected by the First Appellate Court warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Findings of Court:

In proven circumstances that the original appellant was not having title over the property, that the respondent herein is the owner of the land in question, that concurrent finding is that the original appellant was encroacher and further that objection was raised by respondent herein against the construction she should not have shut out by the rule of acquiescence or by the rule of estoppel for having made a representation to make the original appellant to believe that she had consented for the construction.

Result : Appeals dismissed.