1. Suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession — Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1363
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
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Amol Chitale, Advocate, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Sourabh Tandon, Advocate, For the Appellant.
Mr. Amol Chitale, Advocate, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Sourabh Tandon, Advocate, For the Appellant.
Important Points
Adverse possession can only be a plea of defense and not of establishing rights as a plaintiff.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title based on adverse possession or if such a plea is restricted to a defense. (Para 5 )
3. The High Court's opinion that adverse possession is only a plea of defense is contrary to the current legal position established by the Supreme Court. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. A plaintiff is entitled to seek a declaration of title based on adverse possession having matured into ownership. (Para 5 )
5. High Court order set aside — Application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC rejected — Trial Court directed to try the suit on merits. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession?
Yes, a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title based on adverse possession having matured into ownership; the plea of adverse possession is not limited to being a plea of defense. (Para 5 )
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.
