Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Darshan Kaur Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Gandhi & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 701-1702 of 2022 [@ SLP [C] Nos. 800-3801 of 2022] [@ Diary No(s). 35380 of 2019]
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Adverse Possession - Declaration of Title - The court held that the appellant, as the plaintiff, cannot seek a declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership, as the plea of adverse possession was only a plea of defense and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff. The legal position in this regard was enunciated in a judgment of the Supreme Court, leading to the rejection of the application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, as the original plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration of title, claiming adverse possession on the suit property. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, which was partly allowed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant could not seek a declaration based on adverse possession, as it was only a plea of defense and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff. The legal position in this regard, as per a judgment of the Supreme Court, led to the rejection of the respondent's application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could seek a declaration based on adverse possession, and the validity of the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal position that adverse possession was only a plea of defense and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff, as established in a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the High Court, rejected the respondent's application, and directed the trial court to try the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The office report shows that service was complete as recorded in the order of the Registrar dated 12.02.2020. Thus, more than two years have passed and none has put in appearance for the respondent(s).
3. Leave granted.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. The appellant is the original plaintiff who instituted a suit for declaration of title inter alia pleading that adverse possession on the suit property granted him certain rights but on an application filed by respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the same was rejected. The revision petition filed before the High Court was however partly allowed.
5. The High Court on examination of judgment of this Court had opined that the appellant as plaintiff cannot seek a declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership on the premise that the plea of adverse possession was only a plea of defence and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff though injunction suit would be maintainable. The moot point is that the legal position in this behalf now stands enunciated to the contrary in terms of the judgment of this Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.- 2019 (8) SCC 729.
6. The aforesaid being the position, the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11, CPC predicated on a contrary legal view could not have been sustained and thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application of respondent No.1 stands rejected with the direction to the trial Court to try the suit on merits as expeditiously as possible.
7. The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.
Adverse possession can only be a plea of defense and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff.
A plaintiff can maintain a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession, contrary to the High Court's ruling.
(1) Adverse Possession – Plea of adverse possession is not always a legal plea – It is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved.(2) Foundation for plea of adverse possession must be la....
A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold if it discloses some cause of action, even if alternate pleas are raised; the merits must be determined at trial.
The court affirmed the principle that the onus of proof for adverse possession lies with the party claiming adverse possession, and that adverse possession cannot be used to obtain a decree for decla....
Plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both are contrary to each other and plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take both pleas at the same time.
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming adverse possession, and the requirements of clear, continuous, and hostile possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act must be met.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC allow for alternate defenses like adverse possession, provided they are substantiated in pleadings; courts should be liberal in permitting such a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
