SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Chh) 41

CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
Shanti Bai Agrawal and others - Appellants
Vs.
Uma Bai Agarwal and others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 865 of 1998
Decided On : 19/03/2015

Headnote:

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 46, 47 and 48 - Declaration and permanent injunction - Possession of the suit land - Suit land by way of adverse possession - In reply to the averments, the defendants stated that the subject land is recorded in name of Prasad at Ward, Main Road,. It was also stated that the suit property comprised to be the property of the firm - Death of the two partners were also admitted and further this fact was also admitted that on 2-11-1956 the firm was dissolved. It was further denied that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the land for last 12 years from the date of filing, thereby has acquired ownership of the property. It was further contended that Prasad had bequeath his part of property in of the defendant 3 by Will and as such they were entitled to get their name mutated in respect of the suit land - On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court found that the Will was not proved whereby the defendants had claimed their right and further decreed the suit in of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had acquired the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. The order of permanent injunction was also passed in of the plaintiff. The said finding were assailed by the respondents before the Second Additional District Judge – Held, In terms of the prayer made, the law if applied as has been laid down in a recent case reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 in between Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Village and another, the Supreme Court has laid down that even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. It further says, only if proceedings are filed against the appellant and the appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence. Therefore, in view of the proposition laid down qua the prayer made, the suit filed by the plaintiff is held not maintainable. Therefore, the question of law is answered that the first appellate Court has erred in reversing the trial Courts finding that the plaintiff had perfected his title over the disputed property by adverse possession is held as not sustainable on the grounds enumerated and the reasons stated by the appellate Court, but the suit is held to be not maintainable. The order of the appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the finding thereof are set aside. The suit, however, is dismissed on the ground as per the law laid down in the recent dictum as supra, which do not fall in line to the reasoning given by the appellate Court. The finding has already been given in interpretation of the Ss. 46, 47 and 48, and the effect of dissolution of a partnership firm in terms of the Partnership Act, 1932 - Likewise situation fell for consideration before the Privy Council in a case law reported in AIR 1922 PC 115 in between earlier Limitation Act, 1908, Art. 106 was governing the limitation for the purpose which subsequently in the year 1963, it became Article 5 - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

This instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-7-1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 37-A/97 by the Second Additional District Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur). By such judgment and decree, the appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 25-1-1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 226-A/96 by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Jagdalpur. The instant appeal is by the plaintiff.

2. The briefly stated facts of the case is that a suit was filed by the appellant against Trilokinath Agarwal, Smt. Usha Kiran Agrawal and Deepak Agrawal for declaration and permanent injunction. The undisputed facts are that the house comprised over the Nazul Sheet No. 78, Plot No. 103/2, admeasuring 6285 sq. ft. was recorded in name of M/s. Gagadhar Prasad Kashi Prashad, a partnership firm. The firm had four partners namely Bhuwneshwar Prasad Agarwal (died on 13-7-1962), Udaynarayan Agarwal (plaintiff), Trilokinath Agarwal (defendant 1) and Smt. Singharabai (died on 21-9-1973). The said property was in name of the firm M/s. Gagadhar Prasad Kashi Prasad and plaintiff was residing in the said property right from the year 1943. The partnership firm was dissolved on 2-11-1956. After dissolution of the firm, the plaintiff, who was a partner continuing to reside in the house and was in possession thereof which had also a shop in some portion of the house. It was case of the plaintiff that he was/is in exclusive possession of the suit property for last 12 years after the dissolution, as the suit was filed in the month of September, 1994. The plaintiff/appellant pleaded that by ouster of the title of the defendants after dissolution, the plaintiff was in possession and, therefore, had acquired the right and title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. It was stated that one of the partner Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Agarwal died on 13-7-1962 and Smt. Singharabai died on 21-9-1973 and it was also contended that during the life time of Bhuwneshwar Prasad Agarwal, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. It was further contended that on 23-6-1992, the defendants filed an application before the Nazul Tahsildar, Jagdalpur to mutate their name. It was therefore for such reason, the title of the plaintiff was denied as the plaintiff had acquired the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Consequently, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

3. In reply to the averments, the defendants stated that the subject land is recorded in name of M/s. Gajadhar Prasad Kashi Prasad at Pratapganj Ward, Main Road, Jagdalpur. It was also stated that the suit property comprised to be the property of the firm. The death of the two partners were also admitted and further this fact was also admitted that on 2-11-1956 the firm was dissolved. It was further denied that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the land for last 12 years from the date of filing, thereby has acquired ownership of the property. It was further contended that Bhuwneshwar Prasad had bequeath his part of property in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by Will dated 12-7-1961 and as such they were entitled to get their name mutated in respect of the suit land.

4. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court found that the Will was not proved whereby the defendants had claimed their right and further decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had acquired the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. The order of permanent injunction was also passed in favour of the plaintiff. The said finding were assailed by the respondents before the Second Additional District Judge, Bastar. The appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 4-7-1998 has reversed the finding by holding that the defendants are the co-sharers. Consequently, the plaintiff would not get any title over the property by way of adverse possession.

5. With respect to the finding of the Will











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top