PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Hussain, J.
Most.Kusum Bala Devi Wife Of Late Kedar Prasad
Versus
Sita Ram Yadav
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 330 of 1995
Decided On : MARCH 23, 2010
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65-Adverse Possession-concept of adverse possession is based on the presumption that the title holder has abandoned his property in favour of the person who is in possession on the acquiescence of the title holder to the hostile claim of the person claiming adverse possession-purpose is not to punish the negligent owner bur to protect the interest of the possessor who has maintained and developed the property on the basis of some claim for a long period of time as prescribed in law-For the purpose of proving adverse possession, the person Claiming it must disclaim his earlier right and title over the property in question and plead and prove his independent, hostile and adverse possession to the knowledge of the owner or his successor and also that the owner has acquiesed to his legal possession for twelve years or more continuously-in the present case the defendants having claimed permissive possession of the suit premises cannot legally raise the plea of adverse possession. (Para 33)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Appeal against reversal-both the courts below concurrently found that plaintiffs had valid title over the suit land and that the defendants had no title over the same-however, trial court found that the defendants were in possession of the suit premises as tenants to the plaintiff due to the relationship of landlord and tenant between them, whereas, the learned lower appellate court has reversed the said finding and held that there was no such relationship as the defendants had acquired adverse possession over the suit land-evidence clearly established the relationship of landlord and tenant and defendants failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit premises in their own right before the tenancy-Second Appeal allowed-judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside and claim and suit of the plaintiffs decreed to the extent it was dereed by the trial court. (Paras 29, 30, 31 & 36)
AIR 1966 SC 605, 1979 BBCJ 584 para 7, (2004)10 SCC 779, (2007)6 SCC 59 -Referred to.
S.N.Hussain, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for some of the Respondents.
2. This second appeal has been filed by Plaintiffs Respondents-Appellants against the Judgment and decree of the learned Court of appeal below, by which the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit and claim of the Plaintiffs was rejected.
3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 01 of 1985, which was filed by the predecessor in interest of the Appellants against the Respondents with respect to the suit premises, namely, 3 kathas in Plot No. 1407, Khata No. 367 in village Bhojpur Kadim under Dumraon Police Station within the district of Bhojpur for the following reliefs:
(a) A decree of eviction of the Defendants from Schedule-ll properties of the plaint; for delivery of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and for arrears of rent detailed in Schedule-Ill of the plaint.
(b) A decree of future rent till dispossession of the Defendants.
(c) Any other relief to which the Plaintiffs are entitled to.
4. The Plaintiffs had claimed the aforesaid reliefs on the basis of their claim that the entire Plot No. 1407 (Schedule-ll) appertaining to Khata No. 367 measuring situated in village Bhojpour under Dumraon Police Station within the district Bhojpur originally belonged to Maharaja of Dumraon, who sold the same along with other properties in favour of M/s Dumraon Property Enterprises Private Limited, Dumraon by a Registered deed dated 15th October, 1963 (Exh.4/A) and the Plaintiffs were residing in the suit premises as tenants, which is apparent from the receipts (Exh. 2 series). They further claimed that their father Sheo Puj an Ram had purchased 40 decimals of land (Schedule 1) of Plot No. 1407, appertaining to Khata No. 367 of village Bhojpur, P.S. Dumraon, District Bhojpur from M/s Dumraon Property Enterprises Private Limited, Dumraon vide Registered deed dated 15th July, 1975 (Exh. 4) and came in exclusive possession as absolute owner thereof. It was also claimed that after death of their father, the Plaintiffs came in possession of the said property and on the insistence of the defendants gave three Kotharis as mentioned above (Schedule-ll) on rent of Rs. 40.00 per Kothari to the Defendants on 1st February, 1983 and, thereafter, the Defendants started their business in the said premises and paid rent of the said premises in the months of February, March and April, 1983 but, thereafter, stopped payment of rent from May, 1983 on one pretext or the other and from May, 1983 till February, 1985 the arrears of rent came to Rs. 2,520.00 (Schedule-Ill). They also claimed that the Plaintiffs business of food grain started dwindling and they required the suit premises, which is situated at the crossing of a commercial area for starting other business for maintenance of their family and they requested the Defendants to vacate the suit premises, but, the Defendants refused to do so even after Advocates notice dated 19th February, 1985 sent to the Defendants by post. Hence, the aforesaid suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for eviction of the Defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent by the Defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the Plaintiffs.
5. The Defendants contested the claim of the Plaintiffs claiming that Plot No. 1407 was a portion of C.S. Plot No. 2721 measuring 2.11 acres, which was gairmazarua aam Bhind Pokhar and hence the ex- landlord, namely, Mahraja of Dumraon had no right to transfer the same after January, 1946 as per the provisions of Section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act nor any company named M/s Dumraon Property Enterprises Private Limited, Dumraon is in existence or had any right and title over the suit property. It was also claimed that after vesting of Zamindari, the said Plot remained as gairmazarua aam land under the care and existence of Gram Suraksha-awam- and Vikas Samiti. The father of the Defendants constructed a kutcha house over three decima
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.