Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
BHAGWAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
M/S MODERN SCHOOL & ANR – Respondent
RSA 277/2015
Decided On : 29.07.2015
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - RSA 277/2015 & C.M. Nos.13351-52/2015 - The court discussed the legal position with regard to adverse possession and emphasized that mere uninterrupted possession for 12 years is not sufficient to vest title in the occupant by adverse possession. The possession must be hostile to the true owner and involve the exercise of rights irreconcilable with those of the true owner. The intention of the occupant must be to possess the property as an owner, openly manifested to the knowledge of the owner. The possession must be open and hostile to the true owner. The court found that the appellant's possession did not meet these criteria and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the appellant sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of a property he had occupied after the demise of his father, who was an employee of the respondent school. The trial court had decreed in favor of the appellant, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, setting aside the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's possession did not meet the criteria for adverse possession as it was not hostile to the true owner and did not involve the exercise of rights irreconcilable with those of the true owner. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had acquired ownership of the property by adverse possession after the demise of his father, who was an employee of the respondent school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for adverse possession, the possession must be hostile to the true owner, involve the exercise of rights irreconcilable with those of the true owner, and be openly manifested to the knowledge of the owner. The possession must be open and hostile to the true owner, and the intention of the occupant must be to possess the property as an owner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it and stating that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by the court.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Cav No.783/2015
Since the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
RSA 277/2015 & C.M. Nos.13351-52/2015
1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.04.2015 passed by learned ADJ-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in RCA No.10/2009, whereby the First Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants in the suit and set aside the decree passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by the Trial Court vide
judgment dated 21.07.2007, thereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to occupy the suit premises, i.e. Quarter No.22, Modern School Compound, Barakhamba Raod by adverse possession.
2. The father of the plaintiff Sh. Avtar Singh was in employment with the respondent school. He retired from service on 30.06.1991. As an incidence of his employment, Sh. Avtar Singh was provided accommodation, i.e. the suit property on license basis for his residence so that he is able to discharge his duties. Sh. Avtar Singh expired on 10.05.2003. After the demise of Avtar Singh, the defendant school filed a civil suit for recovery of possession along with arrears of mesne profits, future mesne profits, interest and costs against the legal representatives of late Sh Avtar Singh, namely, Sh. Bhagwan Singh – the present appellant, Sh. Mohinder Singh –s/o late Sh. Avtar singh and Smt. Bishambari Devi – w/o of late Sh. Avtar Singh. The suit was filed on 15.12.2003.
3. The appellant then preferred the present suit on 04.12.2004 to seek a declaration that he had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession, and the relief of injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering in his peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant appeared in the suit. However, the defendant did not lead any evidence. The stand of the defendant school was that the possession of Sh. Avtar Singh was permissive and the nature of possession continued to remain permissive even after the retirement of Sh. Avtar Singh. The defence was that the plaintiff/appellant was not in hostile possession of the suit premises.
4. As noticed above, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court.
5. In first appeal, the First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff as well as the legal position with regard to adverse possession, while allowing the appeal.
6. The submission of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit premises for more than 12 years. He submits that the same has matured into adverse possession. The submission is that even after the retirement of late Sh. Avtar Singh on 30.06.1991, the plaintiff continued to remain in uninterrupted possession, without any protest by the respondent/defendant, for more than 12 years. The suit was filed by the defendant after the expiry of the period of prescription i.e. on 15.12.2003. The title of the plaintiff was perfected on 30.06.2003. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/defendant never issued any notice requiring either late Sh. Avtar Singh, or the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises prior to the filing of the suit. It is further submitted that the first appeal had been filed only by respondent no.2, i.e. the Principal of the respondent school, and not by the respondent school itself.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/caveator has fully supported the impugned judgment. It is argued that after the retirement of Sh. Avtar Singh on 30.06.1991, the permissive possession was continued till he passed away on 10.05.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the other legal representatives/occupants were asked to vacate the premises. However, since they did not vacate, the suit for possession was preferred on 15.12.2003. It is submitted that the present suit was filed as a counterblast on 04.12.2004. It is further submitted that the suit for possession filed by the responde
AI
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
