Back
High Court Of Delhi
R.N.DAWAR - Appellant
Versus
GANGA SARAN DHARNA - Respondent
Suit 466 of 1982
Decided On : 09/24/1992
Held:
A person who claims title to a property by adverse possession must definitely allege and prove as to how and when the adverse possession commenced and what was the nature of his possession and whether the fact of his adverse possession was known to the real owner. The mere fact that he was in uninterrupted possession for several years and in that way he acquired absolute right and title is not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession.
Under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act long possession is not necessarily adverse posession. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT Section 123 — Mere delivery of possession by oral gift confer no title.
Under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immoveable property which is not registered is bad in law and cannot pass any title to the donee. Any oral gift of immoveable property cannot be made in view of the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Mere delivery of possession without written instrument cannot confer any title.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The sale deed and earlier sale documents establish the plaintiff's ownership of the specific plot (!) .
Dispute Over Construction and Possession:
The defendant claimed adverse possession and ownership through transfer and long-term use, but evidence did not substantiate these claims (!) (!) .
Evidence of Ownership and Adverse Possession:
The defendant's claim of adverse possession was not supported by sufficient evidence, and their possession was not deemed to be hostile or exclusive for the statutory period (!) (!) .
Illegal Construction:
The construction was carried out without the plaintiff’s consent, and the defendant's claim of ownership through adverse possession was rejected.
Legal Findings and Relief:
The defendant was ordered to demolish the illegal structures on the land (!) .
Damages and Costs:
The plaintiff was granted a decree for possession, and the defendant was directed to vacate the property and demolish the unauthorized constructions.
Additional Points:
This summary encapsulates the core legal findings, the evidence considered, and the court’s decisions based on ownership, unauthorized construction, and adverse possession issues.
( 1 ) SHRI R. N. Dawar, plaintiff herein, filed this suit for possession, injunction and damages against Ganga Saran Dhama, hereinafter called the defendant No. 1 onthe allegations that he is owener of plot of land measuring 240 sq yards in khasra No. 634 in Dalhi area, Bhola Nath Nagar, between Babu Ram School and Sarwan Talkies.
( 2 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint the said plot of land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed No. 1165 vol 2657 on pages 183 to 185 dated 1/5/51 from Parbhu Dayal, who was the owner in possession of the said plot of land. The plaintiff purchased this plot of land with a view to construct a house thereon but being in service outside Delhi he could not raise the construction. In December, 1981 when he visited the said plot of land, to his surprise he found there a single storey house constructed by the defendant. The plaintiff being the exclusive owner of the said plot of land is entitled to its possession and the defendant has no title, right or interest in the said piece of land and he has illegally and wrongly raised the construction over it. Therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted from the said plot of land and the plaintiff is also entited to damages for the use and occupation of the plot of land belonging to him which he estimates at Rs. 10,000 Besides the relief of possession and damages for use and occupation, the relief. of permanent injunciton has also been claimed restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from raising further construction on the said plot and from alienating or encumbering the said plot of land in favour of any one.
( 3 ) DESPITE a legal notice dated 15/2/82, the defendant did not meet the demand of the plaintiff which necessitated him to file the present suit.
( 4 ) THE defendant contested the suit and filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that his wife Smt. Bhagwanti Devi is the owner of the; said plot of land and she is a necessary party and the suit is bad for non-joinder Of the necessary parties.
( 5 ) ON merits, it is stated that khasra No. 634 in Delhi area comprise of vast area extending over 1000 sq yards and the plaintiff has not been able to allege in the plaint which particular piece of land he had purchased of which he claims himself to be the owner. The ownership of the plaintiff on the said piece of land has been denied. As per the averments made in the written statement this plot of land was owned by one Shri Pat Mal son of Shri Nanak. Pat Mal sold it to Pritam Singh elder brother of the defendant for Rs. 3,300. 00. After the marriage of the defendant in 1966 this plot of. land was transferred by Pritam Singh in the name of the defendant s wife and thereafter a Chappar type house was constructed by the wife of the defendant and after a couple of years regular construction was raised on that piece of land. This house belongs to Bhagwanti Devi wife of the defendant and the house a also assessed to house tax for the last eight years and her name is also mutated in the record of the Corporation. The possession of the property is with the defendant s wife for the last 15 years-and she is residing there with her husband and owner. The defendant and his wife are using this property as their own without any interference or disturbance from anybody. They have acquired absolute right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. Otherwise also she is the real owner of this piece of land having been gifted to her by her brother-in-law Pritamsingh. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession or for damages or injunction as claimed by him in the plaint.
( 6 ) IN the replication, the, averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and those of the written statement have been controverted. It is stated that: the plot of land on which the defendant has put up the illegal construction belongs to the plaintiff. It is denied that Pat Mal was owner of the property who sold i
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
