Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Diwan Chand (Dead) through LRs & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6801-6804 of 2010
Decided On : 11-04-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AOR Mr. M.K. Ravi, Adv. Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mathur, Adv. Mr. Akshat Singhal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv.
Clear evidence establishing property identity is crucial in ownership disputes.
Headnote:Property - Ownership Dispute - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100, Order 41 Rule 33 - The court discussed the ownership dispute over a property and the application of Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties to determine the ownership of the disputed property and considered previous litigation related to the same property. The court's decision was influenced by the findings that established the identity of the property in question.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs challenged orders upholding judgments against them in a property possession suit. They claimed ownership of land encroached upon by defendants.Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed in favor of plaintiffs based on evidence establishing property identity. Appellate courts reversed this decision, but Supreme Court restored trial court's judgment due to clear evidence on property identity.Issues:
Ownership dispute, adverse possession claim, and identification of disputed property.Ratio Decidendi:
The court relied on evidence establishing property identity and rejected adverse possession claims due to previous litigation findings.Final Decision:
Trial court's judgment restored in favor of plaintiffs due to clear evidence on property identity.JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The plaintiffs are before this Court impugning the orders passed by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2306 & 2307 of 1997, which upheld the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court, reversing that of the Trial Court in Suit Nos. 273 and 274 of 1989. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The orders dated 5.4.2010 passed in Review Application Nos. RA-RS-25C & 26-C of 2010 against the aforesaid appeals are also under challenge.
2. The case has a chequered history. However, the facts leading to the present appeals are being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 6801/2010. However, wherever required, the previous litigation pertaining to the said property shall be referred to.
3. The appellant is a registered Charitable Trust, which is the owner of the land forming part of Khasra No. 4833. A suit was filed by the appellant on 26.5.1982 for possession. It was alleged that the land was encroached upon by the respondents/defendants. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants raising objection that the appellants/plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute; they have no locus to file the suit; the defendants are in possession of the property for more than 34 years and running their business; and the suit property is not part of Khasra No. 4833. It was also pleaded that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
4. The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.2.1991. The respondents/defendants were ordered to be ejected from the suit property. Appeal filed by the respondents/defendants, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside primarily on the ground that they had failed to prove their title to the property.
5. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was upheld by the High Court in appeal vide order dated 13.10.2009 and the Review Application was also dismissed on 5.4.2010.
6. Mr. Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial court, while appreciating the evidence, had rightly decreed the suit. However, on a misreading of the evidence, the first appellate court had reversed those findings. High Court also fell in error in upholding the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. He further submitted that before the Trial Court, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants had categorically admitted that the disputed site is part of Khasra No. 4833. In fact, plea of adverse possession could be raised only if the ownership of property is not in dispute. The High Court also recorded a categoric finding that Khasra No. 4833 belongs to the appellants. However, the relief was denied to the appellants only on the ground that the identity of the property was in dispute. The High Court was of the opinion that it is not forming part of Khasra No. 4833. The finding of the High Court that Khasra No. 4833 is owned by the appellants/plaintiffs has not been challenged by the respondents.
7. He further submitted that an application was filed by the Respondents on 2.8.1993 before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Karnal for correction of Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1990 onwards. A categoric admission was made by the respondents therein that the area in possession of the respondents was part of Khasra No. 4833 and they are in possession thereof, which is evident from Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The report of the Local Commissioner, submitted in a different litigation i.e. Civil Suit No. 371 of 1981, which was relied upon by the Lower Appellate Court (Ex. D-16), was without ascertaining any pucca points. He further referred to document at page 97 of the paper book whereby the respondents submitted building plans to the Municipal Committee for the property in dispute specifically mentioning that it is part of Khasra No. 4833. With the aforesaid mate
