Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 346
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Bhikham Sao - Appellant
Versus
Paancheri Devi - Respondent
Second Appeal No.484 of 2006
Decided On : 20-02-2020
Mr. Sunil Tripathi and Ms. Versha Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Ravish Chand Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocates. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Government Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that permissive possession does not qualify for adverse possession, and the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 in cases of possession under an agreement to sale.
Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - LIMITATION ACT 1963, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 - The court analyzed the claim of adverse possession by the defendants and the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The court found that the defendants' possession was permissive, and therefore, the plea of adverse possession was not available to them. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored.
Fact of the Case:
The original plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profit, claiming to have purchased the suit land and come into possession, but was forcefully dispossessed by the defendants. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, which was remanded and decreed in favor of the plaintiff, but later set aside by the High Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit, holding that the defendants had perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' possession was permissive, and therefore, the plea of adverse possession was not available to them. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants had perfected their title by way of adverse possession, and whether the first appellate Court's judgment and decree were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' possession was permissive, and therefore, the plea of adverse possession was not available to them. The court also analyzed the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and found that it was not applicable in this case.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored. The second appeal was allowed, relegating the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the LRs of the original plaintiff/appellants herein was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: -
''Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court holding defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession?''
[For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.]
2. Original plaintiff Bhikham Sao instituted a suit for possession and mesne profit and for permanent injunction stating inter alia that he has purchased the suit land from one Akhandleshwar Prasad Singh by registered sale deed dated 7-12-1955 vide Ex.P-1 and came into possession of the suit land and started paying land revenue and he remained in possession from the date of purchase till 1967-68 by getting his name entered and registered in various revenue records and by making payment of land revenue, but thereafter, in the year 1968, original defendant No.1 Rangnath Singh (who died during the pendency of suit) forcefully dispossessed him and started cultivating the suit land and defendant No.2 being a liquor contractor has also joined hands with defendant No.1, as such, he is entitled for the decree of possession being title-holder of the suit land.
3. Both the defendants filed joint written statement stating inter alia that their possession over the suit land is prior to 1955 continuously and undisputedly and as such, the suit is barred by limitation and since they are in possession for last 25 years, therefore, by applying the doctrine of adverse possession they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. They introduced a plea on 9-5-1974 by way of amendment that it was the benami property of the plaintiffs father, as the plaintiffs father had purchased the said property in the name of the plaintiff in 1955 when the plaintiff was minor and his father has transferred the suit land in their favour and thereby brought an end to the dispute between the parties as such, the plaintiff was never title-holder of the said property and the suit deserves to be dismissed.
4. Pursuant to the said plea, the plaintiff made a consequential amendment in the plaint on 31-7-1974 stating inter alia that the property was held by the plaintiff as full owner and his father has no benami title over the suit land and he has no right to transfer the suit land in favour of the defendants and agreement dated 16-6-1961 (Ex.D-1) was never executed by his father in favour of defendant No.1 and it is a false and fabricated document, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and possession.
5. The trial Court initially by judgment dated 13-3-1975, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation which the first appellate Court remanded on 10-12-1975 in appeal filed by the plaintiff and on remand, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 30-8-1979 and thereafter, the lower appellate Court on 16-4-1981 allowed the first appeal and decreed the suit, but on 14-10-1986, the M.P. High Court set-aside the judgments & decrees of both the Courts below and remanded the case to the trial Court by granting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
6. Pursuant to the judgment of the M.P. High Court, on 12-12-1997, the trial Court complying the judgment, considered the matter afresh and decreed the suit, but the first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit holding that the defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and further held that Ex.D-1 agreement to sale is a valid document.
7. Questioning and disputing the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dismissing the suit, the appellants herein/LRs of the original plaintiff have filed this second appeal in which substantial question of law
