Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Banshilal, S/o. Budhram Sahu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mohammad Javed Ahmad, S/o. Late Shakil Ahmad & Ors. - Respondents
SA No. 569 of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 2003, Section 250 - Civil Procedure Code, Section 100 - Government of Kerala and others vs. Joseph and others (Civil Appeal No 3142 of 2010) - M. Siddique (died) through Lrs. vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867) - Venugopal Padyachi (dead) through Lrs vs. V. Pichaikaran (dead) through Lrs (Civil Appeal No. 4985/2010) - M. Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1 - Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) 8 SCC 729 - M. Siddiq (D) through L.Rs. v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1 - PT Munichikkanna Reddy v Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 - Singaram v. Ramanathan - The judgment discusses the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial question of law for admitting an appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to a property, claiming adverse possession. The defendants denied the sale and possession claims, and filed a counter claim. The trial court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession for the required period of 12 years, as they were unable to establish continuous and hostile possession. The courts also rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, as the documents did not confer adverse possession to the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs could claim adverse possession over the property. Other issues included the validity of the documents presented by the plaintiffs and the rejection of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts emphasized the requirements of adverse possession, including open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial question of law for admitting an appeal. The courts also highlighted the importance of proper pleading and evidence for establishing adverse possession.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed as it did not involve a substantial question of law, and the judgment and decree of the lower courts were upheld. The interim order passed earlier was vacated, and a decree was drawn up accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-8-2017 passed in Civil Appeal No 34-A/2016 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Annexure A/1) arising out of judgment and decree dated 22-2-2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Nagari, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.34-A/2008 (Banshilal and others vs. Mohammad Javed Ahmad and others) by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.
2. The names of the parties have been described as per their description in the suit.
3. The facts as reflected from record are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No 34-A/2008 for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to suit property situated at village Mukundpur, Patwahi Halka No.8, RNM Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari bearing Khasra No. 542, 543, 544 and 545 area 0.10, 0.10, 0.02 and 0.03 respectively total 0.25 RA was recorded in the name of Shakil Ahmed who was father of the defendants No.1 and 2. The said suit property was sold orally by Shakil Ahmad to Budhram who was father of plaintiffs on 11-6-1978 and acknowledgement receipt was also received which is related to one portion of the suit property area .02 decimal and the remaining portion of the suit property was sold by Masood Ahmad with consent of his brother in favour of the plaintiffs and possession has already been given in the year 1978. It was assured that the registration of the sale deed will be done when all the brothers are present within one year but the sale deed has not been executed till the plaintiffs’ father expired. It has also been contended that in the suit property the plaintiffs have already constructed the house and kitchen garden and they are in possession of the suit property for the last 25 years. It has also been contended that the suit property was recorded in the name of Maksud and as the sale deed has not been executed within one year since 1978, but they are in possession of property, as such as per principle of adverse possession, they became property holder of the suit property. It has also been contended that this fact was known to Masood Ahmad and for more than 12 years, the possession of the property was within the knowledge of the defendants’ father, as such they became owner of the property. It has also been contended that the plaintiffs’ father died prior to 10-12 years and during life time late Budhram has already done oral partition between his son and the possession has been given to the plaintiffs as per the details given in the cause title. Since the plaintiffs are in possession of the property and as per the principle of adverse possession, they became title holder over the property. As such, the suit has been filed for claiming the decree of possession on account of adverse possession and also prayed for grant of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants in interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property.
4. Defendant No.1 has filed written statement as well as counter claim also. It is specifically denied that the defendants’ father sold the property orally to the plaintiffs on 11-6-1978. It has also been denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property after sale and it is also denied that no assurance was given to the plaintiffs that the property will be registered after getting consent of all the brothers within one year. It is emphatically denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property through his father or themselves since 1978. It has also been contended that the defendants have done demarcation proceedings wherein it was found that for the last few months, the plaintiffs are in illegal possession. In the year 2000 some legal construction was carried out by the plaintiffs in the suit property which was objected in the Panchayat and after in
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.
Long possession without clear evidence of hostile intent does not equate to adverse possession, and permissive possession cannot turn adverse without communication of hostility.
to approach the Civil Court for adjudicating the title in issue and when the defendant's patta had been cancelled during 1995 merely on the production of certain electricity bills and house tax recei....
Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the 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
