Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Idu Through Lrs. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Nizam Din (D) Through Lrs. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. OF 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 26614-26615 of 2016)
Decided on : 29-01-2024
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant(s) filed a suit for title and injunction on the basis of two sale deeds and also pleaded adverse possession with respect to the suit schedule property. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the appellant(s) was in adverse possession of the suit schedule property.
3. In the second appeal filed by the respondent(s), the High Court after referring to the facts of the case, allowed the appeal by giving the only reason. That is, the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for adverse possession.
Resultantly, this court finds that a suit for declaration, on the basis of adverse possession, is not maintainable. This plea is not available to the plaintiff rather this plea is available to the defendant against the plaintiff. This legal proposition if read in conjunction with missing ingredients of adverse possession, make this court to hold that the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the same are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the suit itself is dismissed leaving both the parties to bear their own costs.”
4. It is evident from the above that the High Court allowed the second appeal only on the ground that a plea of the adverse possession cannot be taken by the plaintiff. Even the review application filed by the appellant(s) came to be dismissed on 02.05.2016.
5. This Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur; 2019 (8) SCC 729 settled the law and laid down the principle that a plaintiff can seek declaration of title by adverse possession.
6. In view of the fact that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in RSA No. 1626 of 1987 and Review Application No. 8-C of 2015 dated 05.12.2014 and 02.05.2016 respectively and allow the appeals.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove continuity and publicity of possession for adverse possession claims, as well as the necessity of a registered instrument ....
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.
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Cou....
Possession must be actual, exclusive, and hostile to constitute adverse possession; mere long possession is insufficient.
Adverse possession cannot be claimed by a permissive occupant without admitting the true owner's title.
The courts determined that undocumented claims to adverse possession were insufficient against documented evidence of eviction and title, emphasizing the necessity of continuous possession for claim ....
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
