Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
V P Vedanthappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 403 of 2014 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Adverse Possession - Agricultural Land Dispute - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Article 39 of the Constitution of India - [Saguvali Chit, Adverse Possession, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Article 39 of the Constitution of India]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession against the defendants/State for agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that his father was in continuous possession of the land without anybody's obstruction since 1962, and therefore, he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to the plaintiff's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The Court held that the plaintiff's possession did not meet the requirements of adverse possession as per the law. The Court also noted that the plaintiff's pursuit of regularization of unauthorized occupation indicated a lack of hostile animus against the State, and therefore, he could not claim adverse possession. The Court dismissed the second appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had perfected his title by way of adverse possession for the agricultural land in question. The Court also considered the plaintiff's pursuit of regularization of unauthorized occupation and its impact on the claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the principles of adverse possession, including the need for hostile animus, peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the abandonment of rights by the true owner. The Court also highlighted the conflict between pursuing regularization of unauthorized occupation and claiming adverse possession. The Court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiff to meet the requirements of adverse possession and the lack of evidence supporting his claim.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Court, finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the divergent findings of the Courts below wherein Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession and consequently, suit is dismissed by allowing the appeal. These divergent findings are under challenge by plaintiff.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession against the defendants/State. The subject matter of the suit is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 9 acres 31 guntas. The plaintiff has contended that one H.Veerappa under Saguvali Chit No.5/1944-45 dtd. 21/7/1944, grant was made in favour of said Veerappa, but, however, failed to pay arrears of land revenue and the same was put in public auction and since there were no bidders, State Government resumed the land. The plaintiff contended that however at no point of time, the said Veerappa was put in possession of the suit schedule property and it was the father of the plaintiff namely Poojari Kenchappa who was in actual cultivation and enjoyment of the suit land. Therefore, plaintiff contended that his father was in continuous possession of suit land without anybody's obstruction since 1962 which was open, continuous and hostile animus to that of defendants.
4. The plaintiff has also contended that inspite of repeated request, Government has refused to issue saguvali chit and therefore, plaintiff was compelled to issue legal notice on 24/9/2008. The plaintiff has also further contended that defendants have failed to grant the land in favour of plaintiff. The present suit is filed alleging that on 4/9/2009, some strangers came near the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to quit the land.
5. On receipt of summons, the defendants authorities tendered appearance and filed written statement through District Government Pleader. The defendants claimed that neither the plaintiff nor his father was in possession of the suit schedule property and on account of cancellation of grant made in favour of one H. Veerappa, the suit land stood vested with the Government. The defendants claimed that plaintiff's father never cultivated the suit land which is owned by the State and the entries in the records indicate that it is the authorities who are in lawful possession and therefore, the claim of plaintiff that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession was seriously disputed.
6. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claim have contested the proceedings. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW.1 and 3 independent witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-31. Though defendants contested the proceedings by examining jurisdictional Tahsildar as DW.1, the defendants have not opted to adduce any documentary evidence.
7. The trial Court having assessed the pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence answered additional issue No.1 relating to perfection of title by way of adverse possession in the affirmative. The trial Court also answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and recorded a finding that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. The trial Court also held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving the interference and hence, proceeded to decree the suit.
8. The defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred appeal before the Appellate Court.
9. The Appellate Court being final fact finding authority has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. While examining the finding of the trial Court on adverse possession, Appellate Court was of the view that mere alleged cultivation by plaintiff as alleged in
The judgment established that to claim adverse possession, the possessor must demonstrate hostile animus, peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the abandonment of rights by the true owner. P....
Adverse Possession – Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant right of adverse possession on its own – Surmises, conjectures and approximations cannot serve basis for ....
A claim for title by adverse possession must be clearly pleaded with specific dates and evidence of denial of the true owner's title; mere long possession is insufficient.
The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold ....
Forest Land – Adverse possession - plaintiff is claiming the suit lands by way of adverse possession against the forest department and she does not admit the suit lands as the forest lands and title ....
The claim of title by adverse possession cannot be raised as an alternative plea of occupancy rayat, and the requirements for the claim of title as an occupancy rayat and that of adverse possession 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
